-I'H

E APPELLATE AUTHORITY
U.P. Private Protessional Educational lnbtitutions
(Regulatron of Admlssion & Fixation of Fee)

Hon'ble Clr;rirman Justice Shishir Kumar

H""1r1"Meffi

JUDGMENT
IN

APPEAL NO. 1 (T.E.) OF 201o

Smt Shakuntala Educational & Welfare Society

GIMT lnstitLrte of Management and Technology.

..Appellants

Versus
Adrnission and Fee Fixation Committee,
Bansmandi Chauraha, Lucknow
,.

Respondent

Corrnected with

APPEAL NO 2 (T E ) OF 2010
1

Smt Shakuntala Educational & Welfare Society

Gr,lgotia College of Engineering and Technology
..Appellants
Versus

Admission and Fee Fixatton Committee,

Bansmandi Chauraha, Lucknow.
,.

Respondent

The present;ippeal has been filed under section '1 1 of U.P Self Finance

Education lnstitution (Regulation of Admissron and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006

against the order daled 225.2010 and 23.9,2010 passed by the Fee Fixation
Committee

The brief facts as stated in the appeal are that for the academic years

2010-1

1, 2011-12 and 2012-13 the appellants made an

application with

requisite documents for fixing the fee for the period mentioned above. The
appellant no.1 is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration

Act, 1860. lt has established an institution, namely Galgotia lnstitute

of

/t"i

Greater Noida'
lnstitute at 1' Knowledge Park'
Technology
and
Management
education from the last
The institution is imparting an

district G.B.Nagar
M'Tech' ln
like MBA' MCA' B Tech and
courses
various
in
years
several
and Fee
issued by the Secretary' Admission
response to the letter 25 3'2009

FixationCommtttee,tlreappellantssubmrttedaproposalbasedon'.!:
informationfortheyearendingon3lstofMarch2008and3,l'tMarchof2009
0' The proposal
ending on 31't of March 201
which estimate for the year
regards to the
with
of the 6th Pay Commission
submitted also corrtained effect

are duty bound to pay

staff which the appellants
other
and
Faculty
of
salary
along with the
a revised proposal was also filed
under the law. Subsequently
for the year ending
1 2010 revistng estimates
provisional balance street on 31

on3l"tofMarch20l0inviewofthefactthattheinformationavailableismore
aSperactualasopposedtoestimateprovidedinthepreviousproposal
submrttedbytheappellants.Theappellantsprovidedthecorrectandaccurate

informationtoenabletheFeefixatronCommitteetofixthefeeoftheinstitution

aSperactuaiexpensesincurredbytheinstitute.on30thoctober20l0a
hearingwasheldwithregardtofixationoffeeoftheappellantrnstitution.Atthat

timesomequerleswereraisedbytheCommitteewhichwasclarifledvideits
ietterdatedS'42ol0alongwithrelevantdocuments.Againahearingwasheld
various

on

made
of the appellant institution
20.4.2010 when the representatrve

submissionslikethatdepreciatlonshallbeprovidedatawrittendownmethodin
Hon,ble Allahabad
view of the orders passed by
the case of the appellant in

HighCourtinwritpetitionno.6g56lof2006.Anothersubmissionwasthatthe
taken
15o/o' Further it has to be
be provided @
development charges should
the salary of the Faculty
Commission with regard to
effect regarding the 6th Pay

andotherstaffaswellastheinflatlonmustbeprovided@1Oo/o,Thesaid
without

institution'
representatrve of the appellant
committee upon hearing the
down by the Hon ble
agarnst the principles laid
due applicatron of mind and
order on its own whim
various ludgments' passed
Supreme Court of lndia in

andfanciesoverlookedthesubmissionsmadebytheappellantinstttutronand

urrilaterallydisallowedtheexpensesincurredandproposedtobeincurred"

bytheappellantinstitutionandfurthergeneralizedthefeestructureofthe
lt
courses mentioned above
for
93'200/Rs
fixing
appellant institution
for
grounds given by the commtttee
has been submitted that the
nor
related neither to profiteering
expenses
the
of
drsallowance
2

particular expense
capitation fee. [Jrrless and until a finding is recorded that
has
conles within the defirrition of capttation fee or profiteering, the committee
verified
no right to disallow any expense legally it-rcurred by the institution and
generalized
by the charlereci Accountant. The committee while fixing the fee
of
the effect of 6il'pay conrmission and allowed only 10% adclitional expense
salary instead of actual effect of the 6th pay commission. Further the Committee

has also larled to provide the inflation for the financial year 2010-'1 1 while
calculating the avelrage fee. Further the Committee has generalized the
adverlrsenrenl expenses without any basis and reasons given thereunder. As
given in
reg;arc.ls tlre inflatiorr is concerned only 5% instead of 10% has been
spite of the fact lhal various documents regarding inflation of the previous years
was provided with the aPPlication

submitted that while fixing the fee a general

parameter should not have been adopted in view of the judgment of various
court which clearly held that while fixing the fee the Committee has to take into

lt has further been

3.

consideration the actual expenses, inflation as well as the development charges

for betterment of the institution. OnlV two thinos are prohibited in the iudqment

of the Apex Courl whrle consideri

Cornmrttee

iderino fixatton of fee of the institution

faiied by the comrnittee

itself lt has been submitted

that whrle fixing the fee

(2005)
the Comrnittee has overlooked various ludgmeni of the Apex Court like

scc

537 (P A. lnamdar vs. State of Maharashtra and others as well as the

reported in (2002) B SCC 4B'1 in TMA Pai Foundation and others vs

ludgment
vs
state of Karnataka as well as in the case of lslamic Academy of Education
state of Karnataka reported in (2003) 6 scc 697. The guide lines mentioned
at the time
thereunder have not been taken into consideration by the committee

of fixing the fee of self financed prrvate educational institutions, which are
Inamdar
binding in nature lt has been submitted that the Apex Court in P.A.
has clearly held that it is a fundamental right of every private unaided
professional institutions to set up a reasonable fee structure. The reasonable
fee and no
fee structure is subjected to only two restrictions, i.e. no capitation

profiteering,ThegroundsgtvenfordisallowanceofexpensesbytheCommittee
neither relates to profiteering nor capitation fee

-d*ffi*ffi..,,i
ir*';"

'ffi m-,fl,hffi

i'

.'i't

l\'

J
4

The Corlrmittee exceeded its jurisdiction and disallowed the expenses

without there being any iota of finding of capitation fee and profiteering in the
proposal submrtted by the appellant institution. Unless a finding to this
effect is
recorded that a particttlar expense comes within the definition of capitation fee

or profiteenng it has no right to disallow any expense legally incurred by the

institution. ln Apex court judgment reported in (2003) 6 scc 697 (tslamic
Academy of Education v. state of Karanataka, has held that reasonable
fee
structure of the rnstitution must comprises of an institution plan of investment
and expenditure in such a manner that they may generate some
amount of
profrt rhe reasonable fee structure is subjected to only two
restrictions. ln para
147 it has been hercr that "they thLrs indisputedly have to pran
.a cost and
experidrture that they may derive some amount of profit.
What is prohibited
(a) capitatron fee and (b) profiteering fee. lt has further
submitted that in view of
the Apex court judgments, the state can only regulate
to the extent that a fair
and transparent procedure is adopted in admission and
to keep a check over
the exorbitant fee charged from the students. lt has been held
that institution
should be given greater economy in determination of the admission procedure
and fee structure. The State Regulatron should be minimal
and only with a view

to maintain fairness and transparency in admission procedure and

to check
exploitation of the students by charging exorbitant money and
capitation fee,

By placing reliance upon the judgments the learned counsel for the
appellants sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate has submitted that what profiteering
is
is
excessive profrt and the committee rs bound by the principles
laid down by the
Apex court while fixing the fee. As the judgment of the Apex court
has
been

overlooked, therefore, the order of the committee is bad and

liable to be set

aside. A further submission has been made that the committee

has got no
power to decide in a general manner regarding the advertisement
expenditure

lnspiteofthefactthatrelevantdocumentswerefiled. lnwritpetitionNo.46lg3
of 2007, which is the present institution's writ petition, it has been
held that the

appellant is a big institution and therefore, the fee committee ought

to have
allowed full expense of the advertisement.

Raising all these points the appellant has raised five questions which
are
being reproduced here.

ctirfl

,^,.ffi,s;ffi,sg

",,*r. ,o.l F;r,,-F.na g{ rrlrt v"

xi

ti{'i{l'

li
J

(1) Whether the [::ee Corrlt-tlittee was justified in awarding only 5% as

inflatiorr per annLlrn irr working out average fees for 3 years
for
(2) Whether the Fee Committee was justified in not awarding inflation
2010-11 in workir-rg out average fee structure for 3 years
'10 Lac
(3) Wheilrer rhe Fees committee was justified in allowing only Rs,
Lac from
54
advertisenrent charge anci disallowing

Rs

as

28

advefiisement charge.

(4) Whether the Fee Committee was lustified in allowing only 10% of
total expenses on account of 6th Pay Commission'

(5) whetlrer the Fee committee had any authority to amend the order
suo moto having become functions - offlcio and to order that the fees
frxeci canrtot be recovered from old students.

As regarcls 1he .luestion no 1 it lras been submitted that the fee is fixed
for a period of three years on the basis of the balance sheet of previous year
with respect to the year for which fee is fixed Therefore, to escalate tt for three
years and then giving average fee the committee while fixing the fee gives
benefit of yearly inflation each year. On the basis of said calculation while fixing
for academic year 2O1O-2013 benefit of 5% as inflation per year has to be given

by the committee to calculate the fee structure for three years. while
computing the inflation in its order the Commrttee has held that same is based
on CPI (consumer price index) for the period 2009-10. lt has been submitted

that the. said statement is factually wrong, The Committee while fixing the fee
has not giverr any reason as to why the fee committee concluded that inflation
shoutd be 5% while computing the fee for academic years 20'10-2013. The
appellant has attached a consumer price index for the period issued by the
Government of lndra Ministry of Statistics and Program lmplementation dated
20.3.2010 wherein average

cPl for March 20'10 is

14.9o/o

while for the March

2009 is 9.3%. lt has been submitted that though the average of CPI of March

2009 and Cpl of March 2010 comes out to 1'1.6% but still if 10% inflation is
per
taken the amount of fee will be different and it comes out Rs. 97001
student,

The another point raised is that fee Committee was not justified in not
period
awarding inflation for 2010-1 1 in working out average fee structure for a

7,

of
of 3 years. ln the order the fee structure for 2a10-2013 rs based on the basrs

cqrff
?6ruii{q ol0-&q

@6-tul

&#/,i-* $Hft'6
)##ffii-f+i*
vr ah ta tudr

o.oo

-14rEr/

-arg'i$

/t

bal;:nce sheet of itil0ij-O9 and though escalatron for the years 2o0g- 10, 2oj1_
l2 and 2012-13 has been granted but no escalation has been granted for the
i:cademic year 20,10-i 1 While fixing flre fee for zooT-2010 the fee committee
has while conrputing inflation for the period for whjch fee is fixed has awarded
irflation for each year separately, therefore, the Fee committee again have
two
differerrt crrteria Ior corn;.lulir.tg fee for differer.rt period.

As regarcls the third question raised by the apperant is regarding

cjisallowilnce of thi: .r, jvcr.1rst:rrent expenclrture to the tune
of Rs 54 2B lac ancJ
has granted only tis r0 rac lt has been submitted that the aforesaid
order is
arhitrary and vririroLrt recording any findrng to the effect that
advertisement
expenditrrre has not i;een incurred rhe committee cannot
act as a rationing
authority to deicrcje ;:s to what qr.rantum of expenditure on
advertrsement are

lustified rhe

acivertisL-n-lent

are being made to attract the students so that

intake capacrty is friled as the fee is fixed 'on the basrs

of intake capacity and
not actual strength'

rhe next sub'-rission raised is regarding allowing only 10% of the total
expenditure of ilre expenciiture of 6th pay commission.
ln the proposar
submitted before the committee it was submitted on the basis
of documents
that rrrrplementation of 6'r' pay commission comes to about

13% but the

comrnittee wlrile frxi.g fee has allowed only

109/o regarding implementation of

6'h Pay Commission

10

The last submission has been made that the Fee committee
has got no
power to amend the order suo moto to the effect
that the fee fixed for the period
2010-1=2013 cannot be recovered from the old students.

A submission has
been made by the rearned counser for the appeilant that the order
dated
22 5.2010 of the Fee committee has fixed the fee for a period
of three years,
ie 2010 to 2013 but subsequenily by an order dated 23,g.20.10 the committee
passed an order suo moto that the fee fixed shall be charged
only from the
students who were adrnitted in 20lo and thereafter and from
the old students
who are already stLrdying the fee fixed for the year of therr admission
only shall
be charged

11

The said order is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction in since there

is no power under the Act to review its order suo moto that too without
affording
any opportutrtty to the Institute. The said order is clearly in violation of the
Apex

.o,.,1*m*#.*ri
lS,ffi fi;i,;ai hr'n"
""0.
(iii utt t*
-"1{.i;i-.1.

v'
:1
J.

e ourt ludgnrent whrcir ireld

tlrat the fee has to be valid for a period of 3 years

and thereafter the institution are entitled for revision of fee. The fee is not
course centric but year centric and the student has to pay fee of the year in
which they are studying The fee is calculated by dividing the total expenses

frorn the total strengtlr of the students.

lf the order of the committee

is

implemented then the students admitted in the current year will have to pay
much more fee

12

lf the criteria developed by the Fee commrttee by the subsequent order

dated 23

2010 is implernented then the student who will take admission in the

3'd year of the fee fixed, i.e. academrc year 2012-13 will pay same fee for the

next 3 years,

ie till academic year 2015-'16 which in turn would mean that the

fee is fixed for a period of 6 years. The said criteria is in clear violation of the
Supreme courl ludgnrent and will put the institution in losses, therefore, the
committee can not order the institution to charge the same fee and the said
order dated 23.9.2010 is liable to be set aside.

13

On the other hand, Shri Waseeq Uddin Ahmed, learned

counsel

appearing for the respondent has filed an objection and has submitted that the
answering respondent before fixation of fee for the institution deeply considered

in which the comrnrttee found that straight line method for the education
institution are most useful instead of other method. lt has been submitted that
after submission of the proposal by the appellant the respondent in presence of

the appellant considered the proposal for fixation of fee on the basis of the
audited balance sheet submitted by the appellant before the Committee. The
Committee before fixation of fee for the lnstitution considered and found that
straight line method for the educational institution is most useful instead of other

methods, because establishment of the educational institution are not for

short term period which provides the high quality education to the students for a

long term. lt has further been submitted that at the time of the establishment of

the institution necessity of the huge amount is required because institutions are
bound to comply with the rules and regulations of the AICTEiNCTE for the
purposes of infrastructure and high quality courses. The institution wants to fix

fee in accordance with the depreciation written down method but due to the
Teasons as submitted the Committee for fixation of fee on the basis of straight

line method found reasonable to fix fee structure by using

a,

depreciatron

r(

graduated not on the basis of the depreciation written down method. As regards
the developrnenl charges in compliance of the order of Hon'ble Apex court in

lslamic Academy of Education vs. stafe of Karnataka, reported in 2003

(vol 6) page 697, fixing the development charges varying from 6% to 1s% and,
therefore, the conrmittee has fixed i0% as the development charges. The
learned counsel for the committee has placed reliance upon various
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgnrent as paragraphs 154, 1s5, 156,
159, 160 and '161. As regards the advertisement, as there was much

is7,

15g,

difference

in all the institution regarding the expenses of advertisement as such

the

committee has fixed Rs. 10 lac for all the institutions. Keeping in mind the
order
and direction issued by the Apex Court in respect of self financed institutions
to
fix the reasonable fee structure in order to welfare of the students, the
committee while fixing the fee of the institution also kept in mind the burden
upon the parents and rhe students, as such it can not be said that any infirmity
or discrimination has been done. The order was passed after giving full
opportunity

of hearing keeping in mind that the

rnstitutrons

are

rmparting

education to the students not for the commercial purposes as well

as to gain

the profit for imparting education. The Apex court in various judgments has
held that imparting education is a charitable work and not for the purposes
of
making profit from the fee collected from the students. The order passed
by the
committee is strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the
appellant be dismissed

14.

The committee has been constituted on the basis of the Apex court
ludgment reported in 20a2 pot.B) scc page 4g1 (by eleven Hon,ble Judges)
TMA Pai Foundation vs. stafe of Karnataka. subsequenfly, in lstamic
Academy of Education vs. sfafe of Karnataka (AlR 20og (sc) page 3724,
this judgment is nrainly confined to the interpretation of the Eleven Judges
ludgment of

rMA Pai Foundation,

because various state Government and

Educational lnstitutions understood the majority judgment of pai Foundation in

a different perspective. Thereafter, the matter was again considered in Modern

schoo/ vs. union of lndia, repofted in AtR 2oo4 (sc) page 2236 and in p.A.
lnamdar vs. sfate of Maharashtra, AIR 2oos sc 3226. The TMA pai
Foundation case to the great extent has over-ruled Unni Krishnan case holding
that the scheme formulated in the said case for fee structure was unreasonable

roco ftr,li qrmr,ft$ iiertsrsr iirQrTr

,;rrr e;l frftqi'q qe ift* or Flut-.:
ri-Atil

mml
ffi
bie$rtr

sBM ]r unoS

xedy

eq1 10 lueLu'pnf presaro,e oql

]o an!r^ Ag lueLu.pnf pres
aq ]o L, pue gt sqde.r6e:ed ur 'lue^aral qcrqM ,eper!
sr
uaeq osre seq uorlcerp
Jequnj uollnltlsul eql ,iq pa6.reqc aq plnoc qctqM
ee] Jeqlo eulos asodotd
ol Jo eJnisnrls aa] eql enordde or alels
aq] ]o acrlsnr lerqS aql Aq pajeururou
eq o1 e6pnp pno3 q6rg pe,tlo, e ,{q pepeaq
eaurLulr"loc e dn 1es oi
}ueurure^oc
olels a^llcedse'r eq1 paicaitp
unoc eql 'secuelsurnc,rc Llcns u'aa, uorlelrdec
10 6ur6reqc uou pue 6u,ea,;o.rd 10u 'r;aLueu 'suorlcrJlsoJ
a)iEur o] lcorqns
uorlnlrlsur eql ro ]ueulaueq ro uorsuedxa
,]lels
10 sueld arnln,
pue sJaq3eel
aq1 01 pred fueles 'epeiu
ruoillsa^Ur 'erqerre^B sarirrrceJ

pue slnlcnJisEJjur aql

putut ut Durdeey paxll eq

lsnur aJnlonJls aal ]eql ploq lequnJ seq
].rnoo oq]
'aeJ u^o
xu o] eeJJ aJe suorlnlrlsur aq] ,oJole,oqr ,oJn]3nJls

uaql

aa, u^o lraql

'oq]
]o uorJeurrljrolap oq] spreDer se osre lnq sruapnls
ql ro uorssrrupe oL, spre.er
se {Juo 10u {r-uouolne alelduoc uanr6
ueeq seq uo'nirrsur aq} se
rel* pe}}rurqns
seM ll uollnlllsul otii
lo lleqaq uo q6noq1 ',uotlnltlsut leuollecnpa
Jeuorssalotd
poptEUn aleaud ul sa:nlcnlls
oa] sem uotleuttulalap Jol ansst uteu
aq1
'arres aql
o1 269 e6ed
cos (g'lo1) e00z ur pepode: ,ereleure) Jo alers
'i1ue|c
's^ uollecnp3 1o ,(ruapecv
ctujelsl Jo ase3 eql ut palnltlsuoc
Llsuag sa6pnp
eArJ e secuersulncJrc aseqr repun 'suor1e6r,1
snorJe^ o] peer 1r pue enrlcedsred
luera1Jrp e ut poolsrapun seM
lueurOpnf qcuog leuollnltlsuo3 eql
]cV t/61
eq] lo suotsrnold aql
Jo lxaluoc eq1 ur snldrns alqeuoseal alnlrlsuoo
)eqM ol
se sl enssl aql'aiole]eq1 palelnDat
aq ]ou upo uorlnllsLlr
lEUoriecnpa pepreun
Aq pa6reqc eg ol aal
leq] pleq aseo uoliepunoj ted eLll ,srolauJe:ed
Ouuaellotd
aql o^oqe o1 lcarqnS uapprqlol eq
o] ploLl senn 6ur:ee,10Ld pue ee1 uorlelrdec
'JeAaMoH ernlrpuadxe pue
luaurlsa^Ur Jor 6urprnord raye 1r10rd arqeuosEor
B eleu o1 palirlutad aq plnoqs uollnltlsul
eql uotlexu aaj lo laueLu aq]
ur loJ e
o1 a^eq sosrnos sruJouoJa
'{e1d
1eq1 lueiuopnf pres eq] Jo gg qder6ered
ur peruasqo Jaqpnl seM
.uotlce
]l
fueurldlcsrp alel ol 1q6u pue gels
lurodde
o1 1q6rr 'rpoq 6urureno. e alnlrlsuoc
o] 1q6u 'arnlcnrls eo] alqer,roseo.r e dn
1as o1 1q6u 'sluapnls aq] ]rL!pe o1
eLri apnrcur
1q6r"r

qsrlqelsa o1 lq6u leql peruesqo

teLlpnl sell unoo

uorlecnpe

Lro rarsrurLUpe

pue

aLil

ss^lasueLll uazrlc sLll

teno uaIE] ]uelxa a6te1 e ol ueaq seq uotlecnpa
6urpedr-r-l lo uollouni leql
plall ueeq sell lr oses uorlepuno, re6;o
lue.u6pnI aqr Jo gL puE g; sqder6eLeci
u1 (penordde seM'1q6, lelueurepun] seq uorleenpo
Aq

luun lo

LUnlCtO

Alt't

r\ .r^,

tr-reLlrrcr ]ELrl utsLlrrs,y

essentral to constrtute a committee to

determine the fee structure much before

the starl of the academic sessior-r so

that the institution could advertise and
students coLrrd nrarke proper selection
depending upon their paying capacity.
rn
such circumstances, an ordinance was
promurgated by the Governor
of Uttar
Pradesh, rrarnely, U p prjvate professionar

Educationar rnstitution (Reguration

of Admission and Fixation of Fee)
ordinance, 2006 pubrished in the Gazette
on

107'2006 Later on i1 was convefted

into Act as U.p. Act No. 24 0,f
2006.
According to section 4 0f the Act,
a committee

was constituted to be presided

over by a person who is or has
been a senior administrative officer
of the state
or a Vice chanceilor of a centrar
or state University and shail incrude
two other

members having experience in

the matter of finance or administration.
The
chairrrrarr ancl two nrer,bers
are appointed by the State Government
tor three
years' sectron 1 1 0f the said
Act provides for firing an appear
against the order

passed by the Conrmrttee

before the Chairman.
15 we have considered the submissions made
on beharf of the partres and
have perused the record, Before
going into the various issues raised
on beharf
of the parties it is to be noted
that there were various disputes
regarding fixation
and capitation fee by the Private
unaided technical educational
institutions then
the constitution Bench of the
Apex court in TMA pai Foundation
has raid down
various criterias and guide lines
regarding fixation of fee then
certain doubts
were raised regarding imprementation
of the judgment of rMA pai Foundation

case and various high courts

as we, as the institutions misinterpreted
the
ludgment in their own way, Then the
matter went to the Apex court
in the case

of lslamrc Educationar rnstitution

and others, reported in (2003)
6 scc 697. The
Five Judges bench of the
Apex court has taken the issues
and interpreted the
ludgment and has helcJ in paraT while
answering the question no..l
to the effect

that the fee structure for each

institute must be fixed keeping
in mind the
infrastructure and facirity
avaiiabre, the investment made,
sararies paid to the
teachers and the staff, future plan
for expansion and betterment of the
rnstitution. of-course there cannot
be any profiteering and capitation
fee cannot
be charged but the surprus profit
that can be generated must be
for the
educationar instrtution. rn paras
154, 156, 161 0f the said judgment
the Apex
court has laid down various
criterias to be considered by
the committee whire
fixing the fee for each and
every rnstitution. ln para 54 it
has been held that
t0

*sffiw

"the case of each

institutron in this beharf is required
to be considered by an
appropriate conrmittee " in para 61
the Apex court the Apex court has
herd that
fee once fixed shourd ordinariry not be
changed unless exists extraordinary
situation, meaning thereby that fee is fixed
for a period of 3 years and after that

it is open to the institution to make

an application for review.

'16'

rn 2005 (6)

scc

537, p.A. rnamdar vs.State of Karnataka

what is
prohibited is capitatio, fee rn para
14g of the said judgment the Apex
court
has herd that "we would rike to send
a note of caution to such committee and
expect that so long as they remain
functional, they should be more sensitive
and to act rationaly and reasonabry
with due regard for rearities. rn para
50 0f

the said ludgment it has arso been

herd that if any of the committee
is found to

be exceede. rts power by undury interfering

in administrative and financiar
matter of the unaided private professional
educational

institutions the decision

of the comrnittee being quasijudiciar
wouid arways be open for judiciar review.

'

ln view of the aforesaid judgment

the crux of the issue decided by the
Apex court is ,rat whire fixrng the fee
structure onry two things have been
prohibited i.e. capitation and profiteering
but it has been herd that whire fixing
the fee by the comnrittee the proposar praced
before the committee by the
institution shourd be taken in a positive
manner unress and untir it is found
that
fee is exorbitant and undue burden
upon the society or the student are being
made. The infrastructures and the
facirity have to be taken into consideration
17

while frxing the fee

1B

we have considered the submission. wewourd

by one The first point to be considered
by us

rike to take the issue one

is whether s% infration per year

given by the Fee cornmittee to carcurate
the fee structure for a period of 20.r 0_
2013 is correct or not -l-he Fee committee
whire computing fee has based on
consumer price rndex for the period 2009-10.
one thing is to be noted that the
committee whire fixing fee has not given any
reason that why they are taking
average of 5% per year in the academic year
2010-2013 The appeilant has
subnritted the retter dated 20.3.2010 of
the Government of India, Ministry of
statistics and program rmprementation in
which at page 3g2 of

the memo of
g% whire for March 2oog
it is g 3%.
Therefore, accordingry if it is considered
then it comes 11.6%. The committee
while considering the issue has onry stated
that whire fixing the fee the
appear which gives the index

as

'14

ll

nrfl
orqtarr srfi="tq

mf}o.q01

roeo Fidl iqi{fffiro *nBro ffiqfl/

rinr 61 Eftilrri q'q Btc o ltfii'I,

approve.l balance srreill

ol 2009-09 has been

considered

as regards

the

expenditirre and therefore basing on rate of inflation consumer

price index 5%
inflation has been given Fronr the perusal of the aforesaid
order it is clear

that the comrrittee wrrire considering this aspect of the

matter, has not given
any reason. The argurnent raised on behalf of the respondent
is that

as the fee
is fixed for a periocr o{ 3 years, i.e. for future, therefore,
the average has been
taken and 5% has been given to the appe[ant. rt has
been submitted

that no

dispute to this effect that the percentage during two years

while considering the
inflation it comes about 1i%

19

we are of ilre vrew that whire consrderrng the issue as the

committee is
fixing the fee on the basis of approved balance
sheet of the chartered
Accor:ntant of rhe pre'",rors years. then consumer
price index of these years
arnil a pro;rei per.cii.trqe iras to be taken
From where they have worked out

5%, there is no basis and reasoning given

by the Fee commrttee, unress and
until reasons are recorded to this effect rn
case the institution has filed the

relevant documents showing therein the consumer

price index for certain period

issued by the Government

of rndia then, in our opinion, taking different

percentage by the Committee is not
correct unless and until rt is established
that it is not based on any document. The
Apex court has clearry herd
that

while fixing the fee the committee has to take

into consideration the relevant
factors Therefore, we are of the view that said

reasoning providing 5% infration

to the appellant institution cannot be sard to
be justified we have perused the
documents annexed to the appeal as weil
as the consumer price rndex for the
year 2007'08, 2008-09 and 2o0g-10 lf
we take average of the said infration as
worked out it will come more higher, therefore,
the Committee while considering

this issue, had to consider the average infration

on the basis of the rerevant
records. But admittedry in the order passed
by the committee that has not been
done and reasons for disailowing and awarding
onry

5% has not been given.

The Apex court has herd that whire fixing the
fee the committee has to take
individual case and on the basis of the record
submitted the order has to be
passed. rf rerevant document was fired and
that was not disputed then there
was no occasion for the committee not to
accept the same. As stated above

'the appellant has submitted

the retter of the statistics department of
5;overnrnent of rndra which gives figure and it comes 14 g%
during
OD

srffi
ffiqifiq 3r'fffiq
soqo
i,r,sr

crfAo,'{st

4lznflft6 teiDrm wL','

frf+.rtn q..t r$il u F;'li''i

ifiti

the
the

a,y basis rs not correct. But

as from the record it is
clear that the fee
was frxed in the year 2010-2013
for a period of 3 years,
therefore, taking out
average wiii rrot be
wrthout

very beneficiai for the

institution as welr for
the students. But
we are of the view *rat
in view of the document
submitted
as the committee
has not taken into consideration
the av
to the document ror the
"2;;i
period
2008

lll.;11,,::::""il::ff,H:

only claimed 1o%, therefore, "r

we are of the view that
instead of 5% the
appellants are entitied
to get7.S%inflation.

20

As regards the issue

of infration it is clear
from the order that
the fee for 201o-2013
whire fixing
the benefit of infration
of
2oog-10,2011_12 and
has been given hrut for
2012_13
the year 20lO_11

apperanr rhe orcrer passed

by the

ffi;i:t:: T:tffir",:::: i:

sustained arrd the

appeJ/ants are entrt/ed
for the said amount,
2l

As regards the advertisement

we have considered
tiIne rssue though
rrom the order passecr

by the committee no
proper reason has
been given but
we have come acros. ;;_:""::,1:,"r ^";:_":.^^::'::
s to record of various
institutions of which
advertisement
fee has Ou"n .t.,o,,

il: :i
b

ee

ns

# ffi:: fjh:

"

ve

n .,

;:.: fl ::l :: i:::,t",:" H:::",*;

;"T:

ilHil ff:::T:,] :,I trJ",n::i."

h
" ",d:,s;;:i :"
the expenditure has
been shown by the
institution to the tune
of Rs. g rac, but in
other instrtution where
the

strength of student
is 240 only the expenditure
been shown to Rs
has
13 rac. Therefore,
the committee has
held that if according
is given rhere wi, be
an extra burden upon
[fi][:::,,j,"_",o"nditure
the
documents we,e r
eo

lyilIffff::H1J#il:ffi:,ffi:*;

il:::'il:."j,::l'"nt

or advertisement ree
rhe averase workout
criteria

22.

As regards th submission
regarding allowing
onty 10%
expenditure on ,""ou
accord

ng to

the,+,1,1il'"7r::

of the

total

ffi':il*:il",::# ;T ll

institution wiii come

about 13% but the fer
committee while considering
issue has not recorded
the
r;r;*"^: *:]" :""

j:::'Xj

,'I::TH:;:;:,':ffi:
l[ :x"t,:rffil,,*,t
::::i: i :i;'ffi
while suomittins i;;#J,,
;:"j;,"#".r;::

the record

6,tx
A

c"{Rl

--

orqff,-q

sff*q

mkqt-tul

ft41 q,*',rfcro {efiro cwn,'

,;r fufi:nra mi o$e ar F.iii.;i

]!
,i/

.-d

ir
i

sub'mitted the docLr,ert that in

case the sixth pay cornmission is
implemented
tolo to the teacr'rers and employees
of
the
institution, the burden wi, come
'r

about 13% As it was .ot give.

effect and the document of TDS
and other
cir-rcur.ne.ts were.i)t iited, therefore,
the committee whire considering
the issue
rr;rs give. the benefit of or.rry
1o% rr is rnade crear that in case
the institution
irriplenrents the 6"' pay commission
in toto and submrt the documents
the
Contrrittee rs oblrged ro give fuli
benefrt to the institution

24

As regards the submissions raised

on beharf of the apperant that by
order dated 22.5.2010 the Fee
committee has fixed the fee and
subsequentiy
by order dated 23 g.2010 the order
has been amended suo moto
that too
withor:t arry notice and opportunity
to the appeirant to the effect that
the
students admitted in 2010
and the students aiready studying
the fee fixed for
rhat par1icLrlar year or ddnrission
has ro o" .r,rrguo ," ;"; opinjon
the said
.rder is absoruteiy rrregal anci withoutlurisdiction.

Since there is no powerto the

conrmittee to review irs order
suo moto and that too without
any notice and
.pporlrrnrty to the appera.t,
rt rs not the case of the respondent
that while
passing the order datecr
23.g.20'1 0 any
notice or opportunity has been

grven to
the appeirant However, the order
dated 23.g.2001 is in totar vioration
of the
Apex court judgment rhe Apex
court in rsramic Academic Education
(supra)
has held that fee fixed once
wi, be binding for a period of three years
and
thereafter the fee wrri be revised.
The fee fixed by the committee
sha, be
binding for a period of three years
after the end of which period
the institution
will be at liberty to apply for a
revision. rn p.A. rnamdar vs.
state of
Maharashtra reported in (2005)
6 scc 537, the Hon,bre court has herd
as

nder

'r, pai Founclatiort it has

been very crearry herd at

severar ptaces that

Ltnarcred professtonar rnstitutions
shoutd be gtven greater
autonomy in

delernttnatrort

of

acintission procedure and fee

structure. slale

regulatron should be ntinimal

and only with a view to maintain
fairness
and transparency in admission
procedure and to check exproitation
of
the students by charging exorbitant
money or capitation fees.,, (para
1

29)

I4

rfi'fl
6i*-dq olftdq crko,iq
'^eo

it

frd

Efl

amqqtko SfiFIq {ien/

qs sts ot ft-q"frr'

ftfi{q"

il{Ff't

'

"our answe. to euestion

3 is that every institution is free
to devise its
ow, fee stntctut'e but the same can
be regurated i, the interest

preventing pro,reering No
capitatio, fee can
"However we
wottrcl rike to sou,cr

l"he reantecl cr unser appearing

r:rittcizecr rhe: fLtrtc;rict,r,g

of

sorne

of

be

chargecr."

note of caution

to

(para

141)

such comntittee.

for the petitioners have severery

of the commilrees so

co,stituted. rt

was porntec! ottt by crting concrete

exampres that some of the
contmittees
have indurged

in

assuming such powers and performing

such functio's as w'ere never

given
rsramic Academy. certain

or

intended to be given to them

by

of some of the committees

were subjected to serious
criticism by pointing out that
the fee
structure approved by them
was abysmatty row which has
rendered the functioning of
the institutions armost impossible
or
made the institutions run into
/osses. rn some of the institutions,
decrslons

the teachers have teft their jobs

and migrated to
institutians as if was not possrb
re for management to
talented and highly qualified
teachers against

other
retain

the

salary
permitted by the committees.
Retired high court judges heading
the
committees are assrsred by
experls in accounts and
management.
They also have the benefit
of hearing the contending pafties.
"we expect the committees,
so rong as they remain functionar, to
be
more sensitive and to act rationary
and reasonabry with due regard
for
rearities' They shoutd refrain
from generatizing fee structures
and,
where needed, shoutd go
into accounts, schemes, plans

and budgets
of an individuar institution for
the purpose of finding out what
woutd be
an idear and reasonabre
fee structure for that institution.,,(para

14g)

25

rn view of the aforesaid

facts if the orderdated 23.g.20.10
is accepted the
effect wiil be that if a student
is admitted in 20.10 fora period
of 4 years

course
and the fee is fixed for 2010-2013,
in spite of the revision in
2014_2012
4v t, revised
tEvlsgu
,

t"lmlttee the institution

cannot charge the revised r""

e rro,
Ivrrt
.u"n
DUUII
is that the earrier fee was
fixed for 3 yEdrs
years uy
by ine
the
committee 2ooz-2010, if the
student is admitted in the year
":::::"^:,S::]:r:"
200g in a four
vears course
fact that fee has been revised
by the comm*tee

ll

"tl:.

):+,;+l,ne

nqrff
oTqfaq

rrrffiq

nftro-tol

?oqo fidl^qrqTflfuo vrffDr-o

riiQni
ri{fl
i5'l ltiFl{qq

fq.qts or frq-r;

in

2010 for a period of 3 years he will pay the

old

fee. ln our opinion this criteria

is

trot correct arrd rs totaily against the

ludgnrent of the Apex court. Further as
regards the deveropment charges are concerned
as rt is not the issue in the
presert case thar as ti're present appelrant
has approached the High court by

filing a writ petition rro 69561/2006

smt Shakuntara vs. state of U.p. & others,

whrch Hon',bre Ailahabad High court whire
considering the various issues,
has herd that as regarcrs the deveropment
charge is concerned, the finding to
this efiect regarding 10% surprus is erroneous
in raw and is being set aside and
it has been herci that the institution is
entrtred to get.r5% surprus.

r.

The appeilant

is accordingry charging 15% and this

is a finarjudgment and the appearfired
by

the state has arready been dismissed as

withdrawn. Therefore, we have no
option except to accept the finding recorded
by the Hon,bre Ailahabad High
court As regards the straight line formula is concerned,
the Hon,ble High
courl has held that "As r have heid that
straight rine formura of depreciation
accepted by the comrrittee was
wrong and written down varue method
of
rrer;rrecra[ior.r rnrou]d ir;rve been
applred." l-he order passed by the High
court is
binding on the committee. rn future
while fixing the fee the committee

obriged to take into consideration

and to forow the said judgment.

is

26'

After considering a, the submissrons

and perusing the record we are of
the view that the appeilants are
entifled to get the infration which has
not been
given to the appeilant forthe period
2o1o-11. The appeilants are entifled get
to
benefrt and the order passed by
the committee is modified to this extent.
27 ln view of the findrng recorded as we have herd
that the

entitled to get the infration

@

7'%,

from the students accordingly

28

apperants are
therefore the apperants can charge
fee

rt is weil setiled prrncipre of raw

that the order dated 23.g.2010 is whoily

illegal and against the

ludgment of the Apex court. Admittedly in view
of the
ludgment of the Apex court reported in ArR 2012
sc 3g74 review is a creation
of statute rn the absence of any statutory
provision no court, quasi judicial
authority or administrative authorty
can review its order or decision. rn lggg
(r)

ALR 27 (Summary),2001 (1)ARC p.608

(SC), AIR 1970 SC 1273,ithas
been
held that review is a creature of
the statute and without any power modifying

or
reviewing of the order is not permissibre
unress and untir it is empowered
to do

${r0

orqFdq qffdm qrkfiTur

BoIo
i1i11

ftd qrEijrfto ltgFro drsflzr

or Btiu+a cd slv q;r fiqc,i,
iTG:{E;

I
i

tt

29.

rn view of the aforesaid the order dated

23 g 2010 is set aside. As
regards the order passed by the
committee with regard to not providing
the
benefit of escaration for the period
2o1o-11 the order passed by the
committee
is modified hording thereunder that
the apperants wi, be entitred to get
the
benefit of Rs '11,207r- per student
and they can charge the said fee
from the
students studyrng in the institution
This amount incrudes the escaration
for the
period 2010-11 as weil as
the infration at the rate of 7.5%
which we have
provided to the institution for
the period 2010_11.
30 rn view of the aforesaid fact, the order passed
by the committee is

modified to this extent and the

appeal is allowed partly.
31 No order as to costs.

(Justice

Member

*f^,rar) r\

Chairman

-*S -.+<0\

'

6rql:.-

aoso

Fq,

ftn

ot

*tu"*

:a.S"

a
'"'Ir

,.,

';
l

l7

4. i,',

ti