-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

1 Smt Shakuntala Educational & Welfare Society

2 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

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

Versus

Admission and Fee Fixatton Committee,

Bansmandi Chauraha, Lucknow.
,. Respondent

1 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
2 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'
and Technology lnstitute at 1' Knowledge Park'
Management
education from the last
The institution is imparting an
district G.B.Nagar M'Tech' ln
years in various courses like MBA' MCA' B Tech and
several and Fee
issued by the Secretary' Admission
response to the letter 25 3'2009
FixationCommtttee,tlreappellantssubmrttedaproposalbasedon'.!:
informationfortheyearendingon3lstofMarch2008and3,l'tMarchof2009
ending on 31't of March 201
0' The proposal
which estimate for the year regards to the
with
of the 6th Pay Commission
submitted also corrtained effect
are duty bound to pay
of Faculty and other staff which the appellants
salary
along with the
under the law. Subsequently
a revised proposal was also filed
1 2010 revistng estimates
for the year ending
provisional balance street on 31
on3l"tofMarch20l0inviewofthefactthattheinformationavailableismore
aSperactualasopposedtoestimateprovidedinthepreviousproposal
submrttedbytheappellants.Theappellantsprovidedthecorrectandaccurate
informationtoenabletheFeefixatronCommitteetofixthefeeoftheinstitution
aSperactuaiexpensesincurredbytheinstitute.on30thoctober20l0a
hearingwasheldwithregardtofixationoffeeoftheappellantrnstitution.Atthat
timesomequerleswereraisedbytheCommitteewhichwasclarifledvideits
ietterdatedS'42ol0alongwithrelevantdocuments.Againahearingwasheld
various made
of the appellant institution
on 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
15o/o' Further it has to be
taken
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
courses mentioned above
lt
fixing Rs 93'200/- for
appellant institution for
grounds given by the commtttee
has been submitted that the
related neither to profiteering
nor
drsallowance of the expenses
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
no right to disallow any expense legally it-rcurred by the institution and
verified
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
reg;arc.ls tlre inflatiorr is concerned only 5% instead of 10% has been
given in

spite of the fact lhal various documents regarding inflation of the previous years
was provided with the aPPlication
3. lt has further been 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
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 h

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
6

scc 537 (P A. lnamdar vs. State of Maharashtra and others as well as the
ludgment reported in (2002) B SCC 4B'1 in TMA Pai Foundation and others vs
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
binding in nature lt has been submitted that the Apex Court in P.A.
Inamdar

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 structure is subjected to only two restrictions, i.e. no capitation
fee and no

profiteering,ThegroundsgtvenfordisallowanceofexpensesbytheCommittee
neither relates to profiteering nor capitation fee

-d*ffi*ffi..,,i
ir*';" .'i't
l\'
i'
'ffi m-,fl,hffi
 \
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,
5 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.
6 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,
as advertisenrent charge anci disallowing 54 Rs Lac from28
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,
7, The another point raised is that fee Committee was not justified in not
awarding inflation for 2010-1 1 in working out average fee structure for a
period

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

cqrff
?6ruii{q ol0-&q @6-tul /t
)##ffii-f+i*
o.oo &#/,i-* $Hft'6
vr ah ta tudr
-14rEr/

-arg'i$
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.
B 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'
s 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
""0.
lS,ffi fi;i,;ai hr'n"
(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 I 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 a
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 depreciatron

r(
a,
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,
is7, 15g,
159, 160 and '161. As regards the advertisement, as there was much
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
'aeJ u^o ].rnoo oq] uaql
xu o] eeJJ aJe suorlnlrlsur aq] ,oJole,oqr ,oJn]3nJls
'oq] aa, u^o lraql
]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
'arres aql aq1
o1 269 e6ed
'i1ue|c cos (g'lo1) e00z ur pepode: ,ereleure) Jo alers
'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 uorlecnpe Lro rarsrurLUpe pue
qsrlqelsa o1 lq6u leql peruesqo
teLlpnl sell unoo aLil
ss^lasueLll uazrlc sLll
Aq 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
tr-reLlrrcr ]ELrl utsLlrrs,y
luun lo LUnlCtO Alt't r\ .r^,
 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
infrastructure and facirity
in mind the
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
educationar instrtution. rn paras
for the
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.
17 ' 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
while frxing the fee
1B we have considered the submission. wewourd
rike to take the issue one
by one The first point to be considered
by us 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
appear which gives the index g% whire for March 2oog
as '14
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
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
onry5% 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 the
5;overnrnent of rndra which gives figure and it comes 14 g%
during the
OD

srffi
ffiqifiq 3r'fffiq crfAo,'{st
soqo ifiti 4lznflft6 teiDrm wL','
i,r,sr c frf+.rtn q..t r$il u F;'li''i
 wrthout a,y basis rs not correct. But
as from the record it is
was frxed in the year 2010-2013 clear that the fee
for a period of 3 years,
average wiii rrot be therefore, taking out
very beneficiai for the
institution as welr for
we are of the view *rat the students. But
in view of the document
has not taken into consideration submitted as the committee
the av
to the document ror the "2;;i
period
only claimed 1o%, therefore, "r
2008 lll.;11,,::::""il::ff,H:
we are of the view that
appellants are entitied instead of 5% the
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
has been given hrut for
of 2oog-10,2011_12 and
2012_13
the year 20lO_11
apperanr rhe orcrer passed
sustained arrd the
by the
appeJ/ants are entrt/ed
ffi;i:t:: T:tffir",:::: i:
for the said amount,
2l As regards the advertisement
we have considered
rrom the order passecr tiIne rssue though
by the committee no
proper reason has
we have come acros. ;;_:""::,1:,"r ^";:_":.^^::':: been given but
s to record of various
institutions of which
fee has Ou"n .t.,o,, advertisement

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

il: :i "
# ffi:: fjh:
b ee ns ve h

the expenditure has

n .,
" ",d:,s;;:i :" ;"T: ilHil ff:::T:,] :,I trJ",n::i."
been shown by the
institution to the tune
other instrtution where of Rs. g rac, but in
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
[fi][:::,,j,"_",o"nditure an extra burden upon
the
documents we,e r
eo lyilIffff::H1J#il:ffi:,ffi:*;
or advertisement ree
rhe averase workout
il:::'il:."j,::l'"nt criteria
22. As regards th submission
regarding allowing
expenditure on ,""ou onty 10% of the total
the,+,1,1il'"7r::
ffi':il*:il",::# ;T ll
accord ng to l

institution wiii come

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

l[ :x"t,:rffil,,*,t ,'I::TH:;:;:,':ffi: j:::'Xj

::::i: i :i;'ffi
the record
while suomittins i;;#J,,
;:"j;,"#".r;::
6,tx

A
c"{Rl
A
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
'r of the institution, the burden wi, come
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
withor:t arry notice and opportunity
that too
to the appeirant to the effect that
students admitted in 2010 the
and the students aiready studying
the fee fixed for
rhat par1icLrlar year or ddnrission
has ro o" .r,rrguo ," ;"; opinjon
.rder is absoruteiy rrregal anci withoutlurisdiction. the said
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
passing the order datecr that while
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
Apex court judgment rhe Apex of the
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
binding for a period of three years
sha, be
after the end of which period
the institution
will be at liberty to apply for a
revision. rn p.A. rnamdar vs.
Maharashtra reported in (2005)
state of
6 scc 537, the Hon,bre court has herd
u nder as

'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 frd amqqtko SfiFIq {ien/
it Efl ftfi{q" qs sts ot ft-q"frr'
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 of
preventing pro,reering No
capitatio, fee can be chargecr." (para 141)

"However we
wottrcl rike to sou,cr a note of caution to such comntittee.
l"he reantecl cr unser appearing
for the petitioners have severery
r:rittcizecr rhe: fLtrtc;rict,r,g
of sorne 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 or intended to be given to them
by
rsramic Academy. certain
of some of the committees
decrslons
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
made the institutions run into
or
/osses. rn some of the institutions,
the teachers have teft their jobs
and migrated to other
institutians as if was not possrb
re for management to retain
talented and highly qualified
teachers against salary the
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
rearities' They shoutd refrain for
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""
ll "tl:. is that the earrier fee was
e rro,
Ivrrt .u"n
DUUII
fixed for 3 yEdrs
years uyby ine
the
committee 2ooz-2010, if the
":::::"^:,S::]:r:" student is admitted in the year
200g in a four
vears course fact that fee has been revised
):+,;+l,ne by the comm*tee in

nqrff
oTqfaq rrrffiq nftro-tol
?oqo fidl^qrqTflfuo vrffDr-o
ri{fl riiQni
i5'l ltiFl{qq fq.qts or frq-r;
 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,
r. 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. 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 is
obriged to take into consideration
and to forow the said judgment.
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 apperants are
entitled to get the infration 7'%,
@ therefore the apperants can charge
fee
from the students accordingly
28 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 ftd qrEijrfto ltgFro drsflzr
i1i11 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.

Member
(Justice *f^,rar) r\
Chairman
:a.S"

' 6rql:.-
-*S -.+<0\ a
'"'Ir
aoso Fq,
ftn ot *tu"* ,.,

';
l

l7

4. i,',
ti