State Govt. Has No Jurisdiction To Decide Fee Structure For Private Medical Colleges Without Recommendation Of Fee Regulatory Committee: Allahabad HC

The Bench of Justice Alok Mathur held, “The duty has been cast on the Committee by the Act of 2006, and consequently at the end of the validity of the previous notification the Committee has to make a fresh determination which it has failed to do, and consequently the petitioners have a legitimate expectation that the Committee will determine the fee as it is statutory required to do. The State Government on its part could not have issued the notification without such recommendation and therefore there is a complete failure of the machinery for determination of fees for the professional medical colleges requiring interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India…In light of the above this Court is of the considered opinion that the State Government does not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned Government order dated 11/07/2024 without there being any recommendations of the fee regulatory committee and accordingly the same is quashed.”

Senior Advocate Jaideep Narain Mathur for the Petitioners while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Rahul Shukla appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioners were the unaided private Medical Colleges who were aggrieved by the inaction of the State Government as well of the Fee Regulatory Committee as constituted under the Act of 2006 in enhancing the fee to be charged from the students for various medical courses run by the petitioner Institutions for the academic session 2024-25.

The Petitioners submitted that with the object that the students should receive education of the highest grade in the field of medicine, the Petitioner Medical Colleges were established with the permission of the National Medical Commission. The Medical Colleges provided comprehensive facilities, faculties, and expertly trained professionals for teaching, research and patient care. The petitioner Medical Colleges besides MBBS course offered various postgraduate and medical and allied courses in various clinical and non-clinical departments.

The Petitioners submitted that the impugned government order was illegal and arbitrary since it was issued bereft of any recommendations by the Fee Regulatory Committee and in the absence of any recommendation, the Government had no power or jurisdiction to issue any notification with regard to the fee structure and accordingly the impugned Government Order was passed without any jurisdiction.

The question for the Court’s consideration was whether the State Government could issue a notification in the exercise of its powers under section 4(8) of the Act of 2006 without there being any determination of fee by the Fee Regulatory Committee.

The Court answered, “The answer to the aforesaid question can be found on prudent perusal of Section 4(8) and Section 10 of the Act of 2006, which confers the power and provides the procedure for determination of the fee. In sub-clause 8 of Section 4 the Fee Regulatory Committee after its constitution would require the institutions to furnish information as per Section 10 which may enable it to make determination of fee. The private aided or unaided professional education Institutions or private university etc. must furnish such information to the Committee as sought which is necessary for the Committee which has to “determine” the fee. Therefore, a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, clearly indicate that the responsibility of determination of fee has been given only to the Fee Regulatory Committee constituted under the said act. Once the fee has been determined, the State Government would have to notify the said fees and also the period for which such determination has been made.”

The Court observed that merely because the State slept over the matter despite fully knowing that the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 2006 must be implemented for the academic session 2024-25, could not be grounds for not determining the fee for the said academic session. It said that the State as well as the Committee were under a duty to determine the fee which it has clearly failed to perform.

The Court further held that it was only for the session 2024-25 that the State Government notified the fee structure on its own, without reference to the recommendations of the Fee Regulatory Committee. Once the Fee Regulatory Committee was constituted, it was deemed to have commenced its function to determine the fee, and the educational institutions as well as the State Government had no option except to wait for the recommendations of the committee, and neither the educational instructions could charge any enhanced fees, nor could the State Government notify the fee structure on its own without waiting for the recommendations of the fee committee, the Court held.

Hence, the Court, while relying on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the Indian Institute of Management and Engineering Society and Another (2016), directed the Fee Regulatory Committee to proceed to fix the fee for the academic session 2024-25 in respect of the Institutions before this Court, in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition.

Cause Title: U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences College Welfare Association and Ors. v. The State Of U.P. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024: AHC-LKO:56355)

Appearances:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Jaideep Narain Mathur, Advocates Amit Jaiswal, S.K. Chaudhary, Mudit Agarwal, Aishvarya Mathur and Aditya Singh. Respondents: Additional Chief Standing Counsel Rahul Shukla

Click here to read/download the Judgment