[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Andhra Pradesh Higher Education … vs Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering … on 9 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3483]
APHC010008812024
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 182 of 2024 along with W.A.
Nos.118, 183, 187, 191 & 197 of 2024 and W.P. No.14967
of 2024
W.A. No.182 of 2024 ...Appellant
Andhra Pradesh Higher Education
Regulatory And Monitoring Commission,
Vs.
Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering Colleges Managements ...Respondent(s)
Association and Others
**********
Advocate for Appellant: Mr. P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel,
appearing vice Mr. C. Sudesh Anand
Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. N. Subba Rao, Senior Counsel,
appearing vice Mr. Vijay Mathukumilli
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 09.07.2025
Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
The present writ appeals have been preferred against the judgment and
order, dated 05.12.2023, passed in a batch of writ petitions bearing
Nos.32909, 32967, 35109 of 2022; 20878 and 22945 of 2023. Since the
issues of fact and law in this set of cases are same, we propose to deal with
them by way of a common judgment and order.
2
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batchA batch of writ petitions came to be filed by private unaided engineering
colleges established in the State of Andhra Pradesh as also by the
Associations representing some of the Engineering colleges. The petitions are
filed challenging the notification, dated 30.06.2022, issued by the Andhra
Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission requiring
data to be furnished as prescribed in 31 Schedules described in the guidelines
with a view to fix the fee which the colleges would be permitted to charge.
The petitioners‟ case in brief was that some of the information sought by
the Commission was unnecessary and irrelevant besides being cumbersome.
Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to briefly state the facts as
under:
2. There is in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh an Act called the
Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission
Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 2019”). The said Act,
according to the preamble, was enacted “to establish the Andhra Pradesh
Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission to maintain
standards of education, regulation of fee, service condition of teachers and
safeguard the interest of students and to ensure public spiritedness, equity,
excellence, financial stability and probity along with good governance and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
3
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
The Act is meant to apply to all higher educational institutions including
medical, dental, agriculture, horticulture, engineering and veterinary
institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Commission is headed by a Chairperson, who is to be a retired
Judge of the High Court and other members, in terms of Section 4 of the said
Act.
Chapter III deals with powers and functions of the Commission. Section
9(ii), in particular, provides that the Commission shall have the power to
monitor and regulate fee in higher educational institutions in accordance with
the rules, guidelines and procedures prescribed for that purpose.
3. Section 9(a) of the Act envisages the Commission to ensure that
standards of admission, teaching, examination, research, qualification of
teachers and infrastructure, are maintained by the higher educational
institutions in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Regulatory
Authorities of the Central Government from time to time.
Section 9(b) of the Act further envisages that the Commission shall
have the power to monitor and regulate fee in higher educational institutions in
accordance with the rules, guidelines and procedures, prescribed for the
purpose.
4
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
4. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 1 of Section 23 of
the Act of 2019, the rules called as „the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education
Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019‟ (for short, “the Rules”)
have been framed.
Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with the power of the Commission to call
from each institution its proposed fee structure well in advance along with the
relevant documents and books of account for scrutiny. The Commission in
terms of Rule 8(2) has the power to decide whether the fee proposed by the
institutions is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of
capitation fee.
Rule 8(3) vests in the Commission the liberty to approve or alter the
proposed fee for each course to be charged by the institution. The proviso,
however, envisages that it shall give the institution an opportunity of being
heard before fixing any fee or fees.
Rule 8(4) requires the Commission to take into consideration the
following factors while prescribing the fee:
“(a) The location of the Higher Educational Institution,
(b) The nature of the course,
(c) The cost of available infrastructure,
(d) The expenditure on administration and maintenance,
(e) A reasonable surplus required for growth and development of
the Higher Educational Institutions,
(f) The revenue foregone on account of waiver of fee, if any, in
respect of students belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
5
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batchTribes and wherever applicable to the Socially and Educationally
Backward Classes and other Economically Weaker Sections of the
Society, to such extent as shall be notified by the Government from
time to time,
(g) Any other relevant factor.”
5. The Rules further envisage that the Commission shall communicate the
fee structure as determined by it to the Government for notification under Act
5 of 1983.
It has been further envisaged that the fee determined by the
Commission shall be valid for a period of three years. Rule 8(7) envisages
further that the fee so determined shall be applicable to a candidate who is
admitted to an institution in that academic year and shall not be altered till the
completion of his/her course in the institution in which he/she was originally
admitted.
6. Section 22 of the Act envisages framing of regulations with a prior
approval of the Government. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section 1 of Section 22 of the Act of 2019, the Government approved the
Regulations called as the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and
Monitoring Commission Regulations, 2020 (for short, “the Regulations”).
7. The said Regulations were notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on
5th March 2020. Regulation 4(4) inter alia envisages that the Commission shall
have the power to request a higher educational institution to furnish
6
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
information as may be necessary for enabling the Commission to regulate the
conduct of admissions and/or to fix the fee in respect of each course offered in
the institution.
Regulation 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory
and Monitoring Commission Regulations, 2020, (for short, “the Regulations”)
envisages that the Commission shall decide whether the fees collected or
proposed to be collected by the institutions, whatsoever under all heads
including hostel and mess charges is justified and does not amount to
profiteering or charging of capitation fee.
It further provides that the decision of the Commission shall be final
provided that such decision shall be taken only after giving a reasonable
opportunity to the institution to represent its case.
8. For facility of reference, the relevant sub-regulations in Regulation 5 are
reproduced hereunder:
“(6) For furnishing the fee proposal by the Institution, the
Institutions shall submit audited statements of income and
expenditure, balance sheets and particulars of expenditure including
salaries, infrastructure, hostel & mess facilities and such other
information as the Commission may prescribe along with the
necessary supporting documents, ledgers and Bank statements in
PDF files.
(7) The fee proposals furnished by the Institutions have to be
evaluated based on the income and expenditure of the Institutions as
well as the societies/trusts under whose umbrella the said Institutions
are established.
(8) The Institutions shall submit all the required financial
information as per the mercantile (accrual) system of accounting only.
7
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
(9) The Institution shall submit the required information such
as the details of the fee collections, income and expenditure
statements, teaching and non-teaching staff salaries of all kinds,
administrative and other expenses, statement of revenue grants
received, utilization of amounts collected under the NRI quota, details
of Term Deposits of the Institutions, details of the loans received from
the Societies, Banks/Financial Institutions and loans received from
other non-banking Financial Institutions, statements of corpus /
capital fund, capital grants received and utilised, grants/funds
received from any source on account of research projects and their
utilization details, legal expenditures, student result particulars and
other information.
(10) In order to consider the expenditure on teaching and non-
teaching staff, the cadre strength fixed by the respective regulatory
authorities and accreditation bodies needs to be adopted.
(12) In case of any infrastructure and/or services of any staff
utilized for more than one programme, the expenditure on such
infrastructure and/or staff shall be apportioned appropriately, based
on students strength, among the different programmes.
(19) The Institutions shall maintain details of student fee
collection and utilization, salaries of teaching and nonteaching staff,
faculty details subject wise, particulars of infrastructure and other
expenditure and furnish the same online to the Commission.
(20) If the details required under these guidelines are not
furnished or the financial statements furnished are found inaccurate,
the financial statements shall not be considered for the fee proposals.
(34) The fee approved by the Commission at any point in time
shall be valid for a period of three years next; and subsequent change
in fees, if any, shall be applicable only in respect of new admissions.
(35) The Commission may recommend the fee in Private
Aided or Unaided Higher Educational Institution for different
professional programmes of study and different categories of
students, having due regard to the guidelines, if any, notified by
Regulatory Authorities from time to time.
(36) (a). The principle of determining uniform fee structure for
all students of Higher Education Institutions shall not come in the way
of determining differential fee structure to benefit the more meritorious
sections of students admitted under the convener quota from that of
the Management and NRI quota;
(b) The institution shall be at liberty to collect the fee for the
Management quota seats up to two (2) times of the fee notified for the
Convener quota of seats in order to maintain quality of education by
providing proper infrastructural and instructional facilities and
amenities;”
8
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
9. The Commission issued a notification, dated 30.06.2022, calling for
requisite data to be entered into the relevant portal pertaining to the fee
proposals of each institution for the block period of 2023-24, 2024-25 and
2025-26. The data which was required to be furnished was as per relevant
Schedules 1 to 31, as contained in the annexure to the notification.
For facility of reference, the details which were required to be furnished
as per Schedules 1 to 31 are reproduced hereunder:
SCHEDULE DETAILS TO BE FURNISHED IN THE SCHEDULE
Programme wise (which includes year wise & category wise) Fee
SCHEDULE – 1
Collections of the institution
SCHEDULE – 2 Statement of Other Income of the institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
Eligible Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020-
SCHEDULE – 3
2021) & (2021-2022)
Other Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020-
SCHEDULE – 4
2021) & (2021-2022)
Regular Non Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution
SCHEDULE – 5
(2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
Contract Non Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution
SCHEDULE – 6
(2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE – 7 Statement of Legal Expenditure (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)SCHEDULE – 8 Statement of Gardening Expenditure (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
Statement of Expenditure on Seminars, Workshops, Student Related
SCHEDULE – 9
Expenditure, Fests (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)Statement of Expenditure on Scholarships, Merit Awards etc., Spent by
SCHEDULE – 10
the Institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
Statement of Administrative & Other Expenses of the institution (2020-
SCHEDULE – 11
2021) & (2021-2022)
Statement of Finance Costs of the institution (2020-2021) & (2021-
SCHEDULE – 12
2022)
SCHEDULE – 13 Statement of Fixed Assets Schedule for DepreciationStatement of Grants Received and Utilisation from the Government and
SCHEDULE – 14
Other sources like TEQIP, MHRD etc. (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)SCHEDULE – 15 Statement of Stipend Expenditure
SCHEDULE – 16 Statement of Institutional and Quality Parameters
Statement of Utilisation Expenditure for the Block Period of 2020-2021
SCHEDULE – 17
to 2022-2023 by the Institution
9
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batchStatement of Proposed Expenditure for the Block Period of 2023-2024
SCHEDULE – 18
to 2025-2026 by the Institution
SCHEDULE – 19 Statement of Fixed Deposits of the institutionStatement of Loans Received from Societies, Banks/ Financial
SCHEDULE – 20
Institution by the institution and OthersSCHEDULE – 21 Independent Income & Expenditure of the Society/Trust
SCHEDULE – 22 Independent Balance Sheet of the Society/Trust
SCHEDULE – 23 Institute-wise Balance Sheet of the Society/Trust
Information Relating to all the Institutions running under the
SCHEDULE – 24
Society/Trust for the year 2021-22SCHEDULE – 25 Details of Salary Payments as per Form 24Q
SCHEDULE – 26 Details of Expenditure on which Tax Deducted Sourses as per IT Act.
Details of Building Infrastructure & Each Programmes wise All Rooms,
SCHEDULE – 27
Hostel Building Separately for the year 2021-22
SCHEDULE – 28 Details of Lab Equipment Each Programme wise for the year 2021-22
SCHEDULE – 29 Details of Other Areas (Hostel Building Separately) for the year 2021-22
SCHEDULE – 30 Cash Payments made in excess of Rs.5,000- for each entry etc.
Books of account (Cash/Bank/Day Book , All Ledgers) in pdf format,
Bank statements directly down loaded from concerned Bank web sites
SCHEDULE – 31
in pdf format, copy of income-tax return-7 and Each course wise audited
financial statements certified by Chartered Accountants (2020-2021) &
(2021-2022)
10. Being aggrieved of the requirement to furnish the data in terms of
Schedules 1 to 31, writ petitions came to be filed individually as also one
claiming to be in the name of association alleging that it was not humanly
possible to enter the data, which was otherwise required as per the schedules
which entailed uploading of each and every accounting entry of the
institutions. It was urged that it was not necessary to upload each and every
accounting entry of the institutions apart from PAN, Aadhar copies of faculty,
Form-16 of each and every employee, Bank account details, date of birth,
date of admission, pay scales etc.
10
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
The petitioners‟ contention was each institution, therefore, requires
entering 12,000 to 15,000 entries into the portal which was not humanly
possible. Apart from this, it was urged that the petitioners were also required
to file physical copies of books of accounts i.e., cash/bank/day book, ledgers
in PDF format apart from Bank statements, income tax returns etc., along with
copies of each and every bill and voucher.
It was also the case of the petitioners that out of the 31 schedules
prescribed by respondent No.2, thirteen schedules did not relate to the
evaluation of fee structure. The thirteen schedules identified by the petitioners
were Schedule Nos.7, 8, 10, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31.
11. From the record, it appears that W.P. No.32909 of 2022 came up for
consideration before the learned single Judge of this Court whereby, as an
interim measure, the learned single Judge, by virtue of the order, dated
12.10.2022, directed the Commission not to insist on calling for information in
regard to certain expenses. For purposes of clarity, the relevant portion of the
interim order, dated 12.10.2022, is reproduced hereunder:
“..
The learned Senior Counsel pointing out this schedule as fixed
by the 2nd respondent submits that this information is not required either
under the Act or under the Rules made there under for the purpose of
discharging the functions by the 2nd respondent in the matter of
regulation of fee for the petitioners‟ institutions.
…
The contention of the learned Senior Counsel finds force to that
extent. In view of the same, the process should go on pursuant to the
impugned notification dated 30-06-2022 and in so far as furnishing of all
11
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batchthe details by the petitioners are concerned under the schedules like
Statement of Legal Expenditure, Statement of Gardening Expenditure,
Statement of Expenditure on Seminars, Workshops, Student Related
Expenditure, Fests, Statement of Institutional and Quality Parameters,
Independent Balance Sheet of the Society/Trust, and the details of Tax
Deductions at Source as per I.T Act they shall not be insisted by the 2nd
respondent at this stage from the petitioners and in so far as the rest of
the details are concerned the same can be furnished by the petitioners
and any regulation of fee is subject to outcome of this Writ Petition. In so
far as the salary expenditure and other expenditure are concerned, the
actuals should be furnished by the petitioners and the same shall be
considered by the respondents.”
Subsequently, by virtue of order, dated 12.07.2023, passed in the same
petition, there was a direction to the Commission not to notify the fee for the
academic years 2023-26, till 18.07.2023.
12. The issue came up again before the learned single Judge when it was
brought to the notice of the Court that the fee for academic year 2023-24 had
not been finalized, the counsel appearing for the Higher Education
Department made a statement that tentatively the fee which was fixed for the
academic year 2022-23 would be considered for the academic year 2023-24
till the fee is finally fixed. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners
was that the fee which was already fixed for academic year 2022-23 should be
enhanced by at least 15% on the fee which was otherwise chargeable to
2022-23 considering the inflation factor. The Court then ordered thus:
“…
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education
and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents and on perusal of
the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view
that the factor of inflation is an admitted factor by the Government as
well as other public/financial institutions, the enhancement of fee at the
12
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batchreasonable rate is mandatory due to increase in price raise and
expenditure.
In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance
the existing fee of the academic year 2022-2023 at the rate of 10% for
the present academic year 2023-2024, but as far as minimum fee is
concerned it should be enhanced more than 10% and finally it is agreed
at Rs.43,000/- by all the stake holders.
For the reasons stated above, the respondents are directed to
notify and publish minimum fee at Rs.43,000/- and in respect of other
colleges whose existing fee for the year 2022-2023 is more than
minimum fees, its fees should be enhanced from the existing fee of the
academic year 2022-2023 at the rate of 10% for the present academic
year 2023- 2024, as a tentative measure till the finalization of the fee by
the Respondent Commission and subject to result of the writ petition.
…”
13. By virtue of its subsequent order, dated 19.09.2023, the Court clarified
that the orders of the Court regarding fixation of the fee would be subject to
the final orders of the Court and that the students be informed accordingly.
14. It appears that vide G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 06.08.2023, the State
Government issued a notification for fixation of fee for B.Tech, B.Arch and
Marine Engineering programs for the private unaided professional higher
education institutions. In the said notification, the term „fee‟ was defined as
under:
“The fee is an all-inclusive annual fee, including like tuition fee,
affiliation fee, cost of identity card, medical fee, inter college/ inter
university sports, games & cultural meet fee, computer/ internet fee,
College magazine and student activities, student health care scheme,
student welfare fund, study tour, alumni fund, sports and games fee,
examination fee including stationery, maintenance and amenities fee,
extracurricular activities fee, development fee, Recognition fee Common
Services Fee and other recurring expenditure.”
15. Subsequently, it appears that the Commission based upon the data
which was furnished, to the Commission, to the exclusion of the data which
13
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
was otherwise prescribed by the schedules, as per the directions of the Court
in its order, dated 12.10.2022, made recommendations to the Government.
The Government, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 07.07.2024, proceeded to
notify the fee for the academic year 2024-25 in regard to various colleges
tentatively on account of the pendency of the legal proceedings before this
Court.
16. G.O.Ms.No.41 came under challenge in W.P.Nos.20878 and 22945 of
2023. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned single Judge
held that G.O.Ms.No.41 to be bad, illegal and contrary to Rule 2(b) of the
Rules inasmuch as the rules defining „fee‟ envisaged only tuition fee and
development charges and not the cost of the identity card, medical fee and
other fees, which were stipulated in the notification, dated 06.08.2023.
17. The learned single Judge held that the Commission had not discharged
its statutory obligation in not providing worksheets to the petitioners with a
view to justify the fee fixed in respect of the petitioners‟ institutions. It was also
held that the educational institutions like the petitioners ought to be given their
autonomy for fixing the fee structure and that the regulatory power of the State
or its instrumentalities were only limited to ensuring that the institution did not
indulge in commercialization of education by collecting capitation fee.
It was also held that fixation of slabs for a number of heads under the
fee component was contrary to the Act and the rules and therefore
14
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
unsustainable. Finally the petitions were disposed of with the following
directions:
“23. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions
are disposed of, remanding to the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education
Regulatory and Monitoring Commission with the following directions:
a. The worksheets should be furnished to the institutions who
requested for them and who provided relevant data for determining the
fees during the slab period of 2023-2026b. Slabs particular limit cannot be fixed for any expenditure
category submitted by the institution; rather, they should be assessed
based on solely on the relevant data as provided by the institutionc. Notifying the Tuition Fee, inclusive of numerous heads (in
contradiction to the definition of ‘Fee’ in accordance with the Act and
Rules), is deemed illegal and arbitrary. Additionally, the Fee must be
formally notified in adherence to the Act and Rules.
d. While fixing the fee, the Commission should address the
claims of the petitioners taking into consideration the rate of inflation,
increased expenditure, actual average intake instead of sanctioned
strength, accreditations, further improvements towards amenities and
research oriented facilities, especially for professional institutions.”
18. While Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant Commission urged that the view expressed by the single Judge is
unsustainable in law inasmuch as the requirement of furnishing data as per
the notification impugned, dated 30.06.2022, was necessary to fix the fee of a
particular college with a view to ensure that there was no profiteering by the
respective colleges, it was stated that the data, as was required in the 31
schedules, was furnished by as many as 93 colleges, who had already
submitted the data as per the prescribed schedules and that there was no
reason as to why, if those colleges could produce the relevant data, the
petitioners could not do the same.
15
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
It was urged that the data required as per 31 schedules was relevant for
scrutiny of expenditure which would thus help the Commission in curtailing
profiteering or commercialization of education, and in the absence of data, it
would be difficult to arrive at a reasonable fee structure for each institution. It
was also highlighted that ingenious methods were adopted by the colleges to
claim higher fee in the fee proposal submitted by them, more so, in regard to
legal expenditure, expenditure on gardening, organization of seminars,
workshops, where crores are claimed to have been spent and therefore, if
such expenditure were to be allowed by the appellant Commission without
regulating the same, it would allow the institutions to indulge in profiteering.
It was also the stand of the appellant that, with a view to curb the
tendency of claiming exorbitant amounts under the head „gardening‟ where in
the past, the institutions were claiming amounts ranging from Rs.5 lakhs to
one crore, a slab of Rs.5 lakhs was fixed per institution for which a separate
schedule is provided to limit the burden on students, as ultimately, it is the
students who have to face the burden of the increased fee structure. As
regards the seminars and workshops, it is stated that the slab has been fixed
between Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs depending on the admitted strength of
students in each institution.
19. With regard to the verification of the payment made to teaching and
non-teaching staff, the stand taken is that the income and expenditure
statements approved by the auditors, which are submitted to the Commission
16
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
along with fee proposals, are totally incorrect, and that authentic documents
were not being provided by the members of the petitioner Association, as was
required, and that information as regards the payment of TDS for teaching and
non-teaching staff, was also not being furnished, as it would help in
crosschecking the expenditure statement given by the institutions.
Further, the stand of the appellant is that cash expenditure in excess of
Rs.5,000/- is to be disallowed as per the guidelines of the Commission.
However, the institutions resort to splitting of the payments to make it less
than Rs.5,000/-, and therefore, the expenditure is required to be verified.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant would further place reliance upon the
Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Vasavi Engineering College
Parents Association v. the State of Telangana 1 wherein the Apex Court
had set aside the order passed by the High Court of Telangana by holding that
it had exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the recommendations of
Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee.
In the aforementioned case, the Apex Court was considering the extent
to which the High Court could examine the determination of fee structure by
the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee in exercise of its
power of judicial review. It held that the Court should be loath to interfere with
the recommendations of expert bodies unless it suffered from arbitrariness
1
2019 7 SCC 172
17
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
and irrationality, or violated any provisions of the law under which it is
constituted.
It further held that the Could cannot sit as an appellant authority and
opine in regard to which manner the fee regulation committee ought to have
proceeded without any finding of violation of rules or procedure. It held that
the statutory body had not exercised jurisdiction properly and the only option
is to remand the matter for fresh consideration and not to usurp the powers of
the authority.
It held that the Court in the garb of judicial review cannot usurp the
jurisdiction of the decision maker and take the decision itself as the judicial
review lies not against the decision but the decision making process.
21. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, on the other hand, placed
reliance upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Cochin
University of Science and Technology v. Thomas P. John 2 and in
particular, para No.16, which reads as under:
“16. A reading of the aforesaid judgments would reveal that the
broad principle is that an educational institution must be left to its own
devices in the matter of fixation of fee though profiteering or the
imposition of capitation fee is to be ruled out and that some amount
towards surplus funds available to an institution must be permitted and
visualized but it has also been laid down by inference that if the broad
principles with regard to fixation of fee are adopted, an educational
institution cannot be called upon to explain the receipts and the
expenses as before a Chartered Accountant. We find that the
observations of the Division Bench of the High Court that no rational
basis for the fixation of a higher fee for two years had been furnished,2
(2008) 8 SCC 82
18
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batchlays down an onus on the educational institution, which would be difficult
for it to discharge with accuracy.”
A lot of emphasis was thus laid by learned counsel for the writ
petitioners that the fee fixation Commission could not have sought details from
the petitioners as if the same were being scrutinized by a Chartered
Accountant. It was thus urged that the view expressed by the learned single
Judge was justified in law and warranted no interference.
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
23. It is settled law that the decision on the fee, which can be charged by
private unaided educational institutions, which were not dependent on any
funds from the Government, is to be left to such private educational
institutions and that fixing a rigid fee structure would be an unacceptable
restriction.
In this regard, the Apex Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of
Karnataka3 in para Nos.54 and 56 held thus:
“54. The right to establish an educational institution can be
regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure
the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and
infrastructure (including qualified staff) and the prevention of
maladministration by those in charge of management. The fixing of a
rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a
governing body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for
appointment or nominating students for admissions would be
unacceptable restrictions.
56. An educational institution is established for the purpose of
imparting education of the type made available by the institution.
3
(2002) 8 SCC 481
19
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batchDifferent courses of study are usually taught by teachers who have to be
recruited as per qualifications that may be prescribed. It is no secret that
better working conditions will attract better teachers. More amenities will
ensure that better students seek admission to that institution. One
cannot lose sight of the fact that providing good amenities to the
students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other
infrastructure costs money. It has, therefore, to be left to the institution, if
it chooses not to seek any aid from the Government, to determine the
scale of fee that it can charge from the students. One also cannot lose
sight of the fact that we live in a competitive world today, where
professional education is in demand. We have been given to understand
that a large number of professional and other institutions have been
started by private parties who do not seek any governmental aid. In a
sense, a prospective student has various options open to him/her where,
therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. The decision on
the fee to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational
institution that does not seek or is not dependent upon any funds from
the Government.”
24. With a view to regulate the fee structures and with a view to prevent
profiteering, the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of
Karnataka4 held:
“7. … Each institute will be entitled to have its own fee structure.
The fee structure for each institute must be fixed keeping in mind the
infrastructure and facilities available, the investments made, salaries
paid to the teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or
betterment of the institution etc. Of course there can be no profiteering
and capitation fees cannot be charged. It thus needs to be emphasized
that as per the majority judgment imparting of education is essentially
charitable in nature. Thus the surplus/profit that can be generated must
be only for the benefit/use of that educational institution. Profits/surplus
cannot be diverted for any other use or purpose and cannot be used for
personal gain or for any other business or enterprise. As, at present,
there are statutes/regulations which govern the fixation of fees and as
this Court has not yet considered the validity of those
statutes/regulations, we direct that in order to give effect to the judgment
in T.M.A. Pai case, the respective State Governments/concerned
authority shall set up, in each State, a committee headed by a retired
High Court Judge who shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of that
State. The other member, who shall be nominated by the Judge, should
be a Chartered Accountant of repute. A representative of the Medical
Council of India (in short “MCI”) or the All India Council for Technical
Education (in short “AICTE”), depending on the type of institution, shall
also be a member. The Secretary of the State Government in charge of4
(2003) 6 SCC 697
20
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batchMedical Education or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall be
a member and Secretary of the Committee. The Committee should be
free to nominate/co-opt another independent person of repute, so that
the total number of members of the Committee shall not exceed five.
Each educational institute must place before this Committee, well in
advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure. Along with the
proposed fee structure all relevant documents and books of accounts
must also be produced before the Committee for their scrutiny. The
Committee shall then decide whether the fees proposed by that institute
are justified and are not profiteering or charging capitation fee. The
Committee will be at liberty to approve the fee structure or to propose
some other fee which can be charged by the institute. The fee fixed by
the Committee shall be binding for a period of three years, at the end of
which period the institute would be at liberty to apply for revision. Once
fees are fixed by the Committee, the institute cannot charge either
directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed
as fees. If any other amount is charged, under any other head or guise
e.g. donations, the same would amount to charging of capitation fee.
The Governments/appropriate authorities should consider framing
appropriate regulations, if not already framed, whereunder if it is found
that an institution is charging capitation fees or profiteering that
institution can be appropriately penalised and also face the prospect of
losing its recognition/affiliation.
…
154. The fee structure, thus, in relation to each and every college
must be determined separately keeping in view several factors including,
facilities available, infrastructure made available, the age of the
institution, investment made, future plan for expansion and betterment of
the educational standard etc. The case of each institution in this behalf is
required to be considered by an appropriate Committee. For the said
purpose, even the book of accounts maintained by the institution may
have to be looked into. Whatever is determined by the Committee by
way of a fee structure having regard to relevant factors some, of which
are enumerated hereinbefore, the management of the institution would
not be entitled to charge anything more.
155. While determining the fee structure, safeguard has to be
provided for so that professional institutions do not become auction
houses for the purpose of selling seats. Having regard to the statement
of law laid down in para 56 of the judgment, it would have been better, if
sufficient guidelines could have been provided for. Such a task which is
a difficult one has to be left to the Committee. While fixing the fee
structure the Committee shall also take into consideration, inter alia, the
salary or remuneration paid to the members of the faculty and other
staff, the investment made by them, the infrastructure provided and plan
for future development, of the institution as also expansion of the
educational institution. Future planning or improvement of facilities may
be provided for. An institution may want to invest in an expensive device
(for medical colleges) or a powerful computer (for technical college).
These factors are also required to be taken care of. The State must
21
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
evolve a detailed procedure for constitution and smooth functioning of
the Committee.
156. While this Court has not laid down any fixed guidelines as
regard fee structure, in my opinion, reasonable surplus should ordinarily
vary from 6% to 15%, as such surplus would be utilized for expansion of
the system and development of education.”
25. In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra5, while sounding a note of
caution to the committees, the Apex Court held:
“149. ..We expect the Committees, so long as they remain
functional, to be more sensitive and to act rationally and reasonably with
due regard for realities. They should refrain from generalizing fee
structures and, where needed, should go into accounts, schemes, plans
and budgets of an individual institution for the purpose of finding out
what would be an ideal and reasonable fee structure for that institution.”
These observations were made on the basis that some committees had
indulged in assuming powers which had come in for severe criticism for fixing
a fee structure, which was abysmally low and rendered the functioning of the
institutions almost impossible or made the institutions run into losses.
A balance, therefore, has to be maintained between the genuine efforts
of an educational institution to ensure efficiency, quality and productivity and
not to provide a fee structure which is unrealistic, leading to closure, while at
the same time, the institutions are also under an obligation to fix a fee
structure which does not allow them to indulge in profiteering. It is precisely for
that reason that the Act, Rules and Regulations supra as mentioned
hereinabove were enacted.
5
(2005) 6 SCC 537
22
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
26. Although a stand was taken by the petitioners in the writ petition with
regard to the schedules being irrelevant and unnecessary, yet there was no
finding recorded by the learned single Judge on that issue as to whether the
said information, which was sought in terms of the notification made, dated
30.06.2022, was unjustified or beyond the scope of the power vested in the
Commission to seek such an information.
The petitioners also did not file any review against the judgment and
order impugned before the learned single Judge on the absence of such a
finding in the judgment and order impugned, if at all it had been argued. In the
ordinary circumstance, a review petition ought to have been filed, which
certainly had not been done in the instant case. The writ petitioners, therefore,
cannot succeed on that ground.
27. Even otherwise, Regulation 4.4 of the Regulations framed under the Act
empowers the Commission to call for such information as may be necessary
for enabling the Commission to fix the fee in respect of such an institution. For
facility of reference, Regulation 4.4 is reproduced hereunder:
“(4) The Commission shall have the power to request a Higher
Educational Institution to furnish information as may be necessary for
enabling the Commission to regulate the conduct of admission(s) and/or
to fix the fee in respect of each course offered in the Institution(s).”
28. In the instant case, information that is sought in terms of Schedules
does not appear to us to be in any manner, irrelevant or beyond the scope of
23
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
powers, which are otherwise vested in the Commission and, in particular,
Regulation 4.4 of the Regulations.
29. Insofar as the fixation of slabs by the Commission in regard to
Gardening expenses, holding of seminars etc., are concerned, the same do
not find any basis either under the Act or the Rules and Regulations. In fact,
there cannot be any slabs fixed by the Commission which is entrusted with the
job of only scrutinizing whether the fee which is claimed under those heads is
justified or not. Each case will have to be scrutinized individually and the
expense would have to be justified by that particular institution.
There may be cases where the actual expenses could exceed the slab
limits either in holding of seminars or for that matter, gardening or payment of
legal expenses if they are otherwise reliable and connected to the functioning
of the institution. While it may be true that the burden of an unjustified claim
under any of the heads might ultimately be apportioned in the shape of fee
among the students, it is precisely for that reason that the Commission‟s
regulatory power comes into play to check on the basis of the information that
is sought under various schedules to see whether the claim is genuine and
justified or not.
30. We are not inclined to accept the finding recorded by the learned single
Judge that the Government could not have notified the fee as all inclusive fee
which included tuition fee, affiliation fee, cost of identity card, medical fee,
24
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
inter-college/inter-university sports, games & cultural meet fee,
computer/internet fee, college magazine and student activities, student
healthcare scheme, student welfare fund, study tour, alumni fund, sports and
games fee, examination fee etc., which was recommended by the Fee
Regulatory Commission to the Government on the ground that it was contrary
to Rule 2(b) of the Rules.
31. For facility of reference, Rule 2(b) of the Rules, reads as under:
“(b) “fee” means all fees including tuition fee and
development charges;”
As against this, learned single Judge recorded his finding as under:
“20. From the above, as per Rule 2(b) of the Andhra
Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitory
Commission Rules, 2019, “fee” means all fees including
tuition fee and development charges. But, as per the
Notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.41 Higher Education
(R.M) Department dated 06.08.2023, „fee‟ is defined as
inclusive of annual fee which included various heads.
Thus, the Commission traversed beyond the Rules, as
such the action of the 2nd respondent is nothing but
illegal and arbitrary.”
32. On a plain reading of Rule 2(b), it is clear that the definition of „fee‟ is
not exhaustive as was misinterpreted by the learned single Judge but was an
inclusive definition and could include the fee on various heads in addition to
the tuition fee and development charges.
33. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the
institutions are entitled to be provided the worksheets pertaining to their
25
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
respective institutions to know as to what was the basis for fixing fee by the
Commission.
Regulation 5.5 of the Regulations in this regard is relevant and reads as
under:
“(5) The Commission shall decide whether the fees collected
or proposed to be collected by the Institutions, whatsoever
under all heads including hostel & mess charges, is justified
and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation
fee. The decision of the Commission shall be final provided
that such decision shall be taken only after giving a
reasonable opportunity to the institution to represent its case.”
34. Whenever a fee proposal is submitted to the Commission, the
Commission, after scrutinizing the relevant data, which is produced by an
institution arrives at a particular amount, which it feels is chargeable by that
college from a particular candidate after considering the various relevant
heads on which the institution claims the fee as chargeable. The right of
hearing as envisaged under Regulation 5.5 would be effective and meaningful
only if the worksheets or copies thereof are furnished to the respective
institutions, who make a request for the same, before giving them a
reasonable opportunity to represent their case.
A reasonable opportunity to represent the case before the Commission
decides to slash the proposed fee would be meaningless, as at the stage of
hearing, before the Commission takes a decision on the proposed fee
structure, the Commission does not disclose its mind to an institution. The
26
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
worksheet would ordinarily contain as to what was claimed and what was
disallowed. Such a worksheet then ought to be provided to the institution,
which would then come forward to justify as to how the slashing of the fee
under a particular head was unjustified.
35. We do not find any basis for upholding the direction as contained in
para 23(d) of the judgment to the extent it orders that while fixing the fee, the
actual average intake of students be considered instead of sanctioned
strength of students for the reason that the same is not otherwise traceable to
the rules and regulations in force.
36. In our opinion, the fee structure has to be regulated and determined
strictly in accordance with the rules and in particular Rule 8(4) of the Rules.
We are also of the opinion that the interim directions issued by the learned
single Judge on 12.10.2022, preventing the Commission from seeking
information with regard to the various heads led to an incorrect assessment of
the fee structure of the institutions. Since we have already held that the
information which was sought for by the Commission in terms of Schedules 1
to 31 were all relevant and were required for a proper determination of the fee
structure, the present set of cases are disposed of with the following
directions:
While directions 23(a) and 23(b) of the impugned judgment and order
are upheld, direction 23(c) is set aside. In regard to direction 23(d), it is
27
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batchordered that the Commission shall determine the fee structure strictly in terms
of the Rules and, in particular, Rule 8(4) of the Rules. Direction 23(d) shall,
accordingly, stand modified to that extent.
The writ petitioners shall, within two weeks from today, furnish all the
material data as is otherwise envisaged to be provided in terms of the
notification, dated 30.06.2022, in schedules 1 to 31. The Commission, after
considering the data, shall tentatively determine the fee. The worksheets or
copies thereof be furnished to the institutions, who may then be given an
opportunity to make a representation in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules read
with Regulation 5.5 of the Regulations and if any fee which is claimed under a
particular head is disallowed, the Commission should record reasons for such
a disallowance and communicate the same to the respective institutions.
The fees fixed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.17, dated
07.07.2024, shall be considered to be tentative and shall be subject to a fee
structure which is duly assessed, recommended and accepted by the
Government.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
akn
28
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. No:182 of 2024 & batch
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 182 of 2024 along with
W.A. Nos.118, 183, 187, 191 & 197 of 2024 and W.P. No.14967 of 2024
DATE : 09.07.2025
AKN
[ad_2]
Source link