Indian Instt. Of Mangement & ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 5337 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 33 
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32744 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Indian Instt. Of Mangement & Engineering Society & Anr.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yash Tandon,Anurag Khanna
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

Indian Institute of Management & Engineering Society, Ghaziabad, duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has established, in 1998, an Institution in the name & style 'Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College, Ghaziabad1, which offers B.Tec, M.Tec and M.C.A. Courses. The Institution is duly recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow2.

Students admitted by the Institution for the aforementioned courses for 2016-17 are as follows:

1. B.Tech - 960 students

2. M.Tech - 114 students

3. M.C.A. - 120 students

It is contended that the petitioner-Institution is one of the best and reputed Engineering Institution in the State of U.P. and offers the highest quality of education; provides state of art facilities in terms of infrastructure and teaching. The Institution has received the Academic Excellence Award for the best Engineering College by Technical University from the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh for two consecutive years i.e. 2008 and 2009. Further, the Institution is accredited by "National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) which is an autonomous Institution of the University Grants Commission. The accreditation by NAAC is for a period of five years with effect from 3 March 2015. B.Tech course is duly accredited by the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) since 2006 and vide communication dated 14 April 2016, the NBA has again provided accreditation for two more years w.e.f. 1 July 2016.

The petitioner-Institution has approached this Court assailing the order dated 22 June 2016 passed by the third respondent-Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, whereby, the private technical institutions in the State, including the petitioner-Institution, has been directed to charge fee for session 2016-17 as determined earlier by the Committee for session 2012-13.

Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yash Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit :

(i) the Committee as required under the Act, Rules and Regulation has not determined the fee for session 2016-17;

(ii) the last determination was done for session 2012-13, which was valid for three academic session;

(iii) the Institution has sought enhancement of the fee @ Rs.1,74,000/- per annum per student for session 2016-17 which has not been considered by the Committee;

In rebuttal, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State would contend that:

(i) the Committee has determined the fee and in case, the Institution has any objection, it may approach the Committee under Regulation 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Private Technical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Regulations, 20153 for enhancement;

(ii) upon decision of the Committee, the petitioner would have an alternative remedy to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal;

(iii) the fee could not have been determined by the Committee under the Act and Regulations for paucity of time, therefore, the fee already determined in 2013 for respective technical institutions has been made applicable for the session 2016-17 alone;

(iv) the Committee has undertaken the task of fee fixation for the session 2017-18.

Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Technical University would contend that the last date for admission of the students in B.Tech, M.Tech and M.C.A. courses was 15 August 2016, as such, admissions have already been closed; Institution, therefore, is not entitled for enhancement of fee.

Rival submissions fall for consideration.

The sole question that arises for determination is as to whether the Committee constituted under the Regulations has determined the fee to be charged by the private technical institution for the session 2016-17.

Pursuant to decision rendered by the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai. Foundation v. State of Karnataka4, Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others5, and P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others6, the State enacted the Uttar Pradesh Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 20067 for the regulation of admission and fixation of fee in private professional educational institutions and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act was enforced on 10 July 2006. Pursuant thereof, the State Government framed Uttar Pradesh Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) (Constitution of Committee) Rules, 20088. The Government vide order dated 27 June 2008 constituted a Fee Fixation Committee, which determined the fee at Rs.81,200/- for the Institution for session 2010-11 to 2012-13, by enhancing it from Rs.75,000/- per student charged earlier. Thereafter, the Committee for session 2013-14 to 2015-16 enhanced the fee by almost 20% and fixed it at Rs.97,100/- per student per year for the courses. Consequently, the Committee was required to fix the fee for session 2016-17 to 2019-20, therefore, proposals were invited from the institutions for determination of the fee. The Chairman of the Committee, Special Secretary, Technical Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow vide communication dated 2 March 2016 addressed to the Director of the petitioner-Institution sought details under 10 heads so as to determine the fee for session 2016-17. Pursuant thereof, the petitioner-Institution vide proposal dated 21 March 2016 claimed enhancement of fee @ Rs.1,74,000/- per student per annum. The details, as sought was furnished, which include expenses on teaching staff, expenses on non teaching staff, investment on computer systems, investment on college building, investment on library books, investment on furniture, investment on lab etc. Depreciation chart for the Financial Year 2014-15 to 2019-20, cash-book for the year 2014-15 and the details of loan taken by the petitioner-Institution, audited balance sheet, computation of proposed fee for the period 2016-17 to 2019-20, increase in Direct Operating Expenditure from 2011-12 to 2014-15 and increase in D.A. rate from July 2012 to July 2015 by the State Government was furnished with the proposal.

The State in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 3, would contend that there are 700 technical private institutions in the State, therefore, in order to fix the Standard Fee for the institutions; on random basis, 24 institutions including that of the petitioner were asked to furnish the details vide communication dated 2 March 2016. It is contended that only 5 institutions responded to the communication by submitting their proposal as required. This fact has been noted in the meeting held on 14 June 2016 by the Sub Committee appointed by the Committee to suggest the fee for session 2016-17. The Sub Committee would record that the fee fixed for various institutions range between Rs.26,400.00 to Rs.97,100.00 for 24 institutions, which were communicated to submit their proposal, out of which only five institutions responded. In respect of the petitioner-Institution it has been noted that the Institution towards salary of teachers have proposed expenses at Rs.16.92 Crores. As per information furnished to the Technical University there are 240 teachers, whereas, upon verification, only 215 teachers are qualified who have a valid PAN card and are working in the Institution, 22 teachers do not fulfill the required qualification and PAN card of three teachers were not valid. Therefore, an inference was drawn that the qualification of the teachers, their actual numbers and the sum paid towards salary and other expenses incurred upon the teachers and staff appears to be doubtful. The actual number of the teachers working in the Institution is less than the number of teachers that has been proposed by the Institution, therefore, the Committee was of the opinion that the exercise of fee fixation since being time consuming, it was not in a position to determine the fee for 2016-17, accordingly, resolved that in the interest of the students and considering the paucity of time, the fee already determined and fixed in 2013 would be charged by the respective institutions for 2016-17. The proposal of the Sub Committee was accepted by the Fee Fixation Committee in its resolution dated 15 June 2016. Pursuant thereof, the impugned order has been passed.

Per contra, the petitioner-Institution would contend that the Committee has not perused the proposal submitted by it, rather the Committee has placed reliance on the information available on the portal of the Technical University which is factually incorrect. The proposal, which is available on record, would reflect that the Institution has 209 teachers, 211 non teaching staff, strength of students since 2011-12 to 2014-15 being 3863 which gradually increased from 2942 students. The break up of students in various courses since 2011-12 has gradually increased, details have been furnished in the proposal. It is, therefore, contended that there has been total non application of mind by the Committee, the opinion has been expressed without examining the proposal and documents in support thereof.

In the case of Islamic Academy, one of the questions posed before the Supreme Court was "whether educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure". The Court held that each institute must have the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the needs to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. They must also be able to generate surplus which must be used for the betterment and growth of the educational institution, however, there can be no profiteering and capitation fees cannot be charged.

"So far as the first question is concerned, in our view the majority judgment is very clear. There can be no fixing of a rigid fee structure by the government. Each institute must have the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. They must also be able to generate surplus which must be used for the betterment and growth of that educational institution. In paragraph 56 of the judgment it has been categorically laid down that the decision on the fees to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational institutions that do not seek and which are not dependent upon any funds from the Government. 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. .................. 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 cither 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."

In P.A. Inamdar, Supreme Court while answering question no. 3 held that every institution is free to devise its own fee structure but the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering. No capitation fee can be charged. Leverage was allowed to educational institutions to generate reasonable surplus to meet cost of expansion and augmentation of facilities which would not amount to profiteering. The Court upheld the two Committees for monitoring admission procedure and determining fee structure as held in Islamic Academy was permissible as regulatory measures aimed at protecting the interest of the student community as a whole as also the minorities.

In the backdrop of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it would be apposite to examine the statutory provision. Sub-clause (d) of Section 3 of Act 2006 defines "Fee" which means all fees including tuition fee and development charges"; Sub-clause (i) defines "private professional educational institution" which means a professional educational institution not established or maintained by the Central Government, the State Government or any public body; Sub-clause (o) of Section 3 defines "unaided institution" which means a private professional educational institution, not being an aided institution.

Chapter II provides for constitution of the Fee Fixation Committee. Section 4 would provide for composition, disqualification and functions of the Committee. Sub-section (8) of Section 4 provides for determination of fee by the Committee as prescribed under Section 10. Sub-section (8) is extracted:

"The Committee may require a private aided or unaided professional educational institution or, a deemed to be University or a private University to furnish by a prescribed date, information as may be necessary for enabling the Committee determine the fee as prescribed under section 10 of the this Act that may be fixed by the institution in respect of each professional course, and the fee so determined shall be valid for such period as notified by the State Government."

Chapter IV provides for Fixation of Fee. The Committee while determining the fee to be charged by a private aided or unaided professional educational institution will have regard to the parameters prescribed thereunder. Section 10 is extracted :

"10(1). The Committee shall determine, the fee to be charged by a private aided or unaided professional educational institution having regard to:―

(i) the nature of the professional course,

(ii) the available infrastructure,

(iii) a reasonable surplus required for growth and development of the professional institution,

(iv) the expenditure on administration and maintenance,

(v) the expenditure on teaching and non teaching employees of the institution,

(vi) any other relevant factor,

(2) The Committee, shall give the institution an opportunity of being heard before fixing any fee :─

Provided that no such fee, as may be fixed by the Committee, shall amount to profiteering or commercialization of education."

Chapter V provides for miscellaneous matter. Section 11 would confer power upon the State Government to appoint an Appellate Authority, where any person or professional institution if aggrieved by an order of the Committee may file an appeal. Section 13 would confer power upon the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Pursuant thereof, Rules 2008 was framed which only provides the composition of the Committee to determine the fee of private institutions and appeal therefrom. The details and parameters on how the Committee is to determine the fee is provided under Regulation 2015 framed under Section 14 of the Act, 2006. Regulation 3 would provide the composition of the Committee consisting of Principal Secretary/Secretary Technical Education and two other members. Regulation 4 (1) would provide that the Committee may fix Standard Fee including tuition fee and development charges for the private Institution. Sub-regulation (3) would provide that if any institution, referred to in sub-regulation (1), request the Committee to fix a fee higher than the Standard Fee or if an institution requests to fix a fee lower than the Standard Fee being an institution of charitable in nature or involving in philanthropic work or for any reason, the Committee will consider the request of such institution. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 4 is extracted:

"If any institution referred to in sub-regulation (1) request to the Committee to fix a fee higher than the Standard Fee because it is an institute of excellence offering specific, useful and job-oriented courses or is purchasing latest equipments for specific course for student welfare, or for any other reason, then in the interest of growth of technical education and its quality, the Committee shall considered the institution's request for higher fee. Further, also if an institution requests to fix a fee lower than Standard Fee because it is an institution of charitable nature or it is also involved in philanthropic work or for any other reason, the Committee shall consider the institution's request for lower fee. The Committee shall give the institution an opportunity of being heard before fixing its final fee."

Sub-regulation (4) details the parameter for determining the fee which includes, expenses on depreciation, expenditure on advertisement, expenditure on development, expenditure due to inflation, expenditure on salary, expenditure on interest, direct recurring expenses, total expenses per student and expenditure on electricity. Sub-regulation (4) is extracted:

(4) The Committee shall fix the fee having regards to the following :-

(i) Expenses on Depreciation- Straight line method shall be applied and the revised rates mentioned in the Companies Act, 1956 will be taken into account.

(ii) Expenditure on Advertisement- Maximum 1% of the total expenses of the institutions on advertisement required for new courses and college related activities through news papers, hoardings, magazines etc. will be allowed:

(iii) Expenditure on Development- Maximum of 10% development charges will be allowed.

(iv) Expenditure due to inflation- The basis of the average of the rates of Consumer Price Index of last three years will be considered for calculating the average rate applicable for next three years, for the purposes of allowing inflation of expenses.

(v) Expenditure on interest- If the Institution has taken loan from any nationalized bank for infrastructure and other fixed capital assets and the interest on above loan is paid by the Institution, than 25% of the interest paid or Rs.3,000 for degree courses/Rs.1,000/- for diploma courses, per sanctioned number of students, whichever is less, shall be considered as expenses;

Provided that the interest paid on the loan taken for hostel and other works, for which the institution is charging money from the students shall not be considered.

(vi) Direct recurring Expenses- The expenses on purchasing periodicals, journals and lab consumables will be considered as recurring expenses but expenditure on books will be considered as capital expenses.

(vii) Total expenses per student- The expenses of an institution shall be determined by considering different types of expenses and dividing it by the number of seats sanctioned by All India Council for Technical Education.

(viii) Expenditure on electricity- The expenses on electricity utilized in an administrative building and in laboratories for operating equipments excluding the expenses on electricity utilized in hostel, staff quarters and mess will be considered.

It is averred in the counter affidavit that the fee for the session 2016-17 could not have been determined by the Committee due to paucity of time. The fee, therefore, determined earlier (2013) would be the fee for session 2016-17. The delay has not been attributed to the institutions. Admittedly, five institutions responded, as against 24 Institutions, for fixing Standard Fee, however, the Committee was unable to determine the fee even in respect of the five institutions. Petitioner-Institution being aggrieved by non determination of fee has pleaded that it would not be possible, even considering the inflation, to run the Institution, maintain quality and pay higher salary to the teachers upon implementation of the 7th Pay Commission Report, therefore, the Institution would have to run at expenses less than their revenue, thus, eroding its surplus.

The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that presently three Institutions out of five have approached the Court, therefore, would urge that all the other Institutions are satisfied with the fee fixed previously, therefore, the Committee would not be in a position to determine Standard Fee and thereafter the fee of each aggrieved institutions. Three Institutions are assailing the impugned order for the reason that they would be adversely affected, in case their fee is not revised. Regulation 4 itself provides that the Committee shall consider the request of the institutions for fixing the final fees, if they are not satisfied by the Standard Fee. In the present case, admittedly, Standard Fee has not been determined by the Committee due to paucity of time though the proposal was submitted by some of the institutions on 21 March 2016. No plausible explanation has been stated in the counter affidavit as to why the Committee could not determine the fee of each of the five institutions that had furnished their proposal. No reason has been assigned as to why the Committee failed to discharge its statutory obligation under the Act 2006 and Regulation 2015. The State is not disputing that the petitioner-Institution is one of the premier private institution of the State and in order to maintain its quality and reputation, fee enhancement sought by it is justified. Private Universities in National Capital Region (NCR) viz. AMITY and JAYPEE are charging @ Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,60,000/- respectively for the same course, whereas, the petitioner-Institution had proposed Rs.1,74,000/-. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that all the admission for the session 2016-17 are over and fee charged from the students at Rs.97,400/- has been made subject to the decision of the writ petition.

It is admitted position that the Committee had to determine the fee for session 2016-17 which would continue upto 2019-20, however, the Committee skipped 2016-17 and resolved to determine the fee for 2017-18, therefore, one batch of students for session 2016-17 have been left out without determination of fee, which in my opinion, would adversely affect on the Institution as the fee fixed in 2013 would have to be charged from the students for the next three years. In these circumstances, I find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Committee has not discharged its statutory obligation, therefore, the plea that the institution can prefer an appeal would not arise as there has been no determination of either Standard Fee or fee in respect of the individual Institutions who had approached the Committee. Reliance has been placed on a decision rendered in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and another9, wherein, the Supreme Court held where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before restoring to writ jurisdiction.

The plea of alternative remedy would not apply in the facts of the present case as Committee has not gone into the question of determining the fee for the session.

In Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana10 the Supreme Court held that where the appeal is from "Caesar to Caesar's wife" the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. ................................ When the High Court had entertained a writ petition notwithstanding existence of an alternative remedy this Court while dealing with the matter in an appeal should not permit the question to be raised unless the High Court's reasoning for entertaining the writ petition is found to be palpably unsound and irrational. Similar view was expressed by this Court in State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.11

It is contended on behalf of the State that the Committee resolved that the fee determined in respect of each of the Institution in the State may be taken to be the Standard Fee, therefore, it is urged that in terms of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 4 the aggrieved institute should have approached the Committee for determination of the fee for the session 2016-17. The submission, in my opinion, lacks merit and is not in sync with Chapter IV of Regulation 2015. On a plain reading of Regulation (4), it would provide that the Committee would fix the Standard Fee for the Institutions, and an aggrieved institute may approach the Committee for enhancement or for lowering the fee fixed. Standard fee is not defined in the Regulation 2015, the Additional Advocate General failed to explain the concept of Standard Fee, he would urge that the Standard Fee would mean a fee determined upon random selection of data from some of the institutes, which would be made applicable upon all the institutions of the State at a flat rate, and thereafter, an aggrieved institute would have to approach the Committee for enhancement. The resolution dated 14 June 2016 of the Sub-committee would reflect that in order to determine the Standard Fee, 24 out of 700 institutions were required to submit their proposal. The individual fee determined in 2013 in respect of the said 24 institutions ranged between Rs.26,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.

In the event of the Committee fixing Standard Fee say at Rs.60,000/- per student, it is evident that all the institutions who are either far below the said sum or institutions which are at higher end would have to approach the Committee for determination of the fee for their respective Institution. In either case, the Committee would have to determine the fee in respect of almost all the Institutions independently. The fallacy in determination of the Standard Fee, as is being submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, is evident from the fact that the Institutions, which are in the range of Rs.26,000/- and above would have to approach the Committee for lowering the fee and all the Institutions who are say at Rs.70,000/- and above would have to approach the Committee for enhancement their fee, therefore, the plea that without determining Standard Fee, the fee fixation of the institutions cannot be gone into appears to be misconceived. The very concept of Standard Fee as is being sought to be urged is in teeth of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on the subject of determination of fee of each institutions.

The AICTE under the Chairmanship of Justice Srikrishna (Former Justice of the Supreme Court of India) had come out with a report prescribing guidelines for charging tuition and other fees for professional courses on 7 May 2015. As per the report, Committee in para (3.1.4) opined as follows:

"Higher fees than 'maximum' fees

Institutes who want to excel in technical education are likely to provide facilities beyond the minimum prescribed standards. Such Institutes may be allowed to charge fees higher than the prescribed fees as mentioned below.

The Institute, who has got accreditation from appropriate authority for at least two thirds of their eligible approved programmes/courses, can charge a maximum of 20% additional tuition fees than prescribed maximum fees.

The Institute, who has been awarded 'Autonomous' status by appropriate authority can charge a maximum of 10% additional tuition fees than prescribed maximum fees."

The maximum tuition and development fees recommended for B.Tech course city/category wise is as under:

(i) Type X Cities Rs.1,58,300/-

(ii) Type Y Cities Rs.1,50,500/-

(iii) Type Z Cities Rs.1,44,900/-

The petitioner-Institution contends that considering their track record and accreditation, the institute is entitled to a further 20% hike over and above the proposed fee.

The learned counsel for the respondent would urge that in continuing the fee fixed earlier for 2016-17 is in keeping with the interest of the students. The argument on face value appears attractive, but tested in depth, appears shallow and lacks merit. The interest of the students is sub-served best by institutions of repute, imparting quality education of international standard. The students are prepared to pay more on placement in such institutions; if the argument that is sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted then a much lower fee would serve the student interest but unfortunately the State does not sponsor or assist financially in either setting up such private institutions or provide working capital. It is for these reasons the Apex Court held that fixation of fee should be left to the private institutions but should be monitored by a Committee so as to prohibit profiteering or from charging capitation fee; the role of the Committee is not that of a 'big brother' to force upon an institution fees determined three years earlier and compel the institution to run the courses at rates which makes it unworkable, therefore, seriously undermining quality instructions to the students. The cow cannot be milked for long without appropriately feeding it.

The cut of date fixed for admission would have no bearing, as admittedly the Committee failed to discharge its statutory duty cast upon it under the Act 2006 and Regulation 2015 framed thereunder. A writ would issue directing the Committee to discharge its legal duty. The conduct of the Committee has not only been casual as reflected from the record but also arbitrary which is deprecated. It is not open for the Committee to say that it would not discharge its statutory duty due to paucity of time.

In the facts of the present case, out of 24 institutions only 5 institutions had submitted their proposal and only three institutions have approached this Court for enhancement of their fee for session 2016-17. The other institutions which have not approached are either not having students in requisite number or infrastructure to cater the students, therefore, may have preferred to continue on the fee determined in 2013. The petitioner-Institution being a premium private institute has sought revision, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Committee to have addressed the issue of fee review.

In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 22 June 2016 passed by the third respondent-Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow cannot be sustained, accordingly, quashed.

The writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

(i) Committee shall fix the fee for session 2016-17 in respect of the Institutions before the Court, after hearing their representative;

(ii) Institutions undertake to submit their proposal before the Committee within one week from date i.e. by 29 August 2016;

(iii) Committee shall determine the fee for 2016-17 within four weeks thereafter i.e. by 26 September 2016;

(iv) The fee charged by the Institution for 2016-17 would be provisional fee subject to the final fee determined by the Committee;

(v) Upon enhancement, the arrears would be payable by the students in installment (half yearly/quarterly) depending upon the hike recommended by the Committee. Installment to be determined by the Committee.

(vi) Committee in future to discharge its statutory function in determination of fee well in advance.

No cost.

Order Date :- 20.8.2016

Mukesh Kr.