The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Sri Sai Baba National Degree ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3975 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI



HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


               WRIT APPEAL Nos.306 and 307 of 2021
                     (Taken up through video conferencing)

W.A.No.306 of 2021

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
Higher Education (C.EA2) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
                                                             .. Appellant
      Versus
Sri Sai Baba National Degree College (Autonomous),
Hospital Road, Opp. Z.P. Office, Ananthapuramu,
Andhra Pradesh - 515001, Rep. by its Correspondent,

Pullalarevu Lakshminarayana Reddy, and others.

.. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, GP for Higher Education, for Additional Advocate General

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Sri Vijay Mathukumilli

Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. C. Sudesh Anand

Counsel for respondent No.3 : Mr. M. Karibasaiah

Counsel for respondent No.4 : Ms. S. Parineetha

W.A.No.307 of 2021

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education (C.EA2) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

                                                             .. Appellant
      Versus
                                     2                                  HCJ & NJS,J
                                                         W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021




St. Josephs Educational Society,
Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh State,

Represented by its Secretary and Treasurer, S.C. Rojamma, and others.

.. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, GP for Higher Education, for Additional Advocate General

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Sr.Adv.

                                 Mr. Sri Vijay Mathukumilli

Counsel for respondent No.2    : Mr. C. Sudesh Anand


Date of hearing                : 02.09.2021

Date of judgment               : 07.10.2021


                         COMMON JUDGMENT

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher

Education, appearing for the appellant/State. Also heard Mr. Vedula

Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Sri Vijay

Mathukumilli, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioners.

2. The common judgment and order dated 07.05.2021 passed by the

learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.1327 of 2021, 2210 of 2021 and 2629 of

2021 is under challenge in the present writ appeals. W.A.No.306 of 2021

arises out of W.P.No.2210 of 2021, while W.A.No.307 of 2021 arises out

of W.P.No.2629 of 2021. Though a writ appeal, being W.A.No.332 of

2021, was also preferred by the State insofar as W.P.No.1327 of 2021 is

concerned, in view of the submission made by the learned senior counsel

for respondent No.1 therein that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner-

institution in the said case was closed down and the directions issued by 3 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge were in no

way going to enure to the benefit of the said institution, this Court had

disposed of the said writ appeal as infructuous, vide judgment and order

dated 22.09.2021, making it clear that the appellant/State would be

entitled to argue on merits in respect of the other appeals preferred

against the common judgment and order.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh had enacted the Andhra Pradesh

Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Act, 2019 (for

short, 'the Act of 2019') to establish Andhra Pradesh Higher Education

Regulatory and Monitoring Commission (for short, 'the Commission') to

maintain standards of education, regulation of fee, service condition of

teachers, safeguard the interests 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. The Act of 2019 applies to all Higher Educational Institutions

including Medical, Dental, Agriculture, Horticulture and Veterinary

Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Commission, in terms of

Section 4(1) of the Act of 2019, consists of, amongst others, a

Chairperson, who is a retired Judge of the High Court, who has to be

appointed by the Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act of

2019.

4. In the course of fee regulation, in terms of Rule 8 of the Andhra

Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules,

2019 (for short, 'the Rules of 2019') framed under Section 23(1) of the

Act of 2019, the Commission had proposed to review and determine the 4 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

fee structure for UG and PG Degree programmes, UG and PG Law

programmes, UG and PG Physical Education programmes in Private

Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the

block period of 2020-21 to 2022-23. The Commission, in its meetings

held on 18.06.2020, 23.06.2020, 29.06.2020 and 16.10.2020, had

resolved to fix the fee structure for Under Graduate (UG) Degree courses

in the Private Un-aided Degree Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh

for the aforesaid block period. Accordingly, the Member Secretary of the

Commission had forwarded the minutes of the meeting of the

Commission held on 16.10.2020 along with recommendations regarding

fee structure, to the Government for issuing necessary Notification.

5. On such recommendations, the Government had issued

G.O.Ms.No.1, Higher Education (C.E.A2) Department, dated 08.01.2021,

in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational

Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee)

Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act of 1983'), notifying the fee structure for UG

Degree Courses in the Private Un-aided Degree Colleges in the State of

Andhra Pradesh as mentioned in the Annexures I, II and III along with

Category-wise list of Colleges appended to the G.O., for the block period

2020-21 to 2022-23, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein.

Relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 reads as follows:

"NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 8 of

the A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring

Commission Rules, 2019 issued in G.O.Ms.No.49, Higher

Education (U.E) Department, dated.11.10.2019 as 5 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

amended subsequently from time to time and in

pursuance of the resolutions of the A.P. Higher

Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission in

their meeting held on dated.16.10.2020, the

Commission recommended the fee structure for Under

Graduate (UG) Degree courses in the Private Un-Aided

Degree Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the

block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 in the State of Andhra

Pradesh.

Further in exercise of the powers under section 7 of

Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of

Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983

(Act No.5 of 1983), Government hereby notify the fee

as mentioned in the Annexures I, II & III along with

Category wise list of colleges appended to this order for

the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23, subject to

following conditions:

(a) The fee is an all-inclusive annual fee including

various fee 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, 6 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

Recognition fee, Common Services fee and other

recurring expenditure.

(b) The aforesaid fee determined for all the UG Degree

courses for the colleges mentioned in Annexure-I,

Annexure-II and Annexure-III does not include hostel,

transport, mess charges, Registration fee, admission fee

and refundable deposits of library and laboratory fee.

(c) The minimum fee mentioned in Annexure-III shall

be applicable for the new Courses/Colleges sanctioned

during the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23.

(d) The same fee shall continue for the students

admitted during the block period of 2020-21 to 2022-23

till they complete the course.

(e) The institutions whose affiliations are not extended

by the Affiliating Universities for the academic year

2020-21 are not entitled to collect any fee.

(f) The institution shall not charge either directly or

indirectly any other amount over and above the fee

fixed in the Annexure-I, Annexure-II, Annexure-III. If

any other amount is charged under any other head or

guise i.e., donations, the same would amount to

charging of capitation fee and in that case the

institution shall be liable to be prosecuted under Section

9 of Act 5 of 1983 apart from imposing appropriate

penalty under the APHERMC Act, 2019 as amended 7 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

subsequently from time to time and the APHERMC

Rules, 2019 as amended subsequently from time to

time.

(g) In case of any deviation from these directions, the

Commission will initiate serious penal action as per the

provisions of the Act and Rules made there under.

(h) Under Section 12(4) & (5) of A.P. Higher Education

Regulatory and Monitoring Commission(Amendment)

Act, 2020, the commission has the power to review and

determine the fee payable to the Higher Educational

Institutions and review the fee determined, whether

notified or not by the Government for any academic

years/blocks.

(i) The institutions are informed that the fixation of fee

structure by the Government will not by itself enable or

permit the managements to run courses, if the courses

are not recognized/permitted by the Government/

concerned University/any other statutory Authority.

5. This order issues with the concurrence of the

Finance (FMU-H&T EDN) Department, vide their

U.O.Note.No.FIN01-FMU0ASD(HTE)/8/2020-FMU-HTE,

Computer No.1284349, dated.22.12.2020."

6. The writ petitioner-institution in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 is stated to

be placed in Category-III, to which the fee structure specified in

Annexure-III appended to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1 is made applicable, 8 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

while the writ petitioner-institution in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 is stated to be

placed in Category-II, to which the fee structure specified in Annexure-II

is made applicable. Aggrieved by such fixation of fee structure and

categorization, the writ petitioners-institutions filed the respective writ

petitions to quash the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 with a

further prayer to direct the appellant/State and other authorities not to

interfere with the right of the writ petitioners-institutions to admit

students into UG Degree Courses as per the fee structure which is

commensurate with the infrastructure and faculty possessed by the writ

petitioners-institutions.

7. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, the learned single

Judge had framed the following points for consideration:

"(1) Whether personal notice/communication need be

served on the colleges in terms of Rule 8 of the

Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and

Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 in view of the

language employed in the said Rule? If not,

whether failure to serve notice/communication

personally on the colleges is violative of clause

(1) and (3) of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh

Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring

Commission Rules, 2019? If so, does it amount to

procedural ultra vires? Consequently, the

G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be

struck down on that ground?

                                        9                                    HCJ & NJS,J
                                                              W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021




          (2)    Whether rules permit categorisation of colleges

into '3' or more? If not, whether the fixation of

fee after categorisation of colleges into '3' is

sustainable? Consequently, whether the

G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be set

aside by declaring the same as illegal and

arbitrary?

(3) Whether the residuary State is required to adopt

laws on bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into two

States? If so, whether the exercise undertaken by

respondent No.2 for fixation of fee under Act 5 of

1983 and consequently, G.O.Ms.No.1 dated

08.01.2021 is liable to be set aside?"

8. Point Nos.1 and 2 being inter-connected, the learned single Judge

decided both the points by common discussion and they were answered

in favour of the writ petitioners-institutions. In view of the findings

recorded on point Nos.1 and 2, the learned single Judge opined that point

No.3 need not be answered and accordingly, it was not answered. In

view of the discussion held on point Nos.1 and 2, the learned single

Judge had allowed the writ petitions with the following directions:

"(1) G.O.Ms.No.1 Higher Education (C.E.A2)

Department dated 08.01.2021 issued by

respondent No.1 is quashed to the extent of

applicability to the petitioners herein while

declaring the action of respondent No.2 as

illegal, arbitrary, violative of Rule 8 of the Rules 10 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

2019, principles of natural justice, and Article 14

of the Constitution of India.

(2) Respondent No.2 is directed to issue intimation

by registered post with acknowledgement due or

serve such intimation through the staff of District

Educational Officer of concerned districts under

proper acknowledgement, calling for information

in 21 schedules including the proposed fee

structure for various courses and on submission

of the same, respondent No.2 shall afford an

opportunity strictly adhering to clause (3) of Rule

8 of Rules 2019 by issuing appropriate intimation

in the manner stated above, so also before

inclusion of the petitioners in particular category.

(3) Till finalization of fixation of fee for various

courses in the petitioners' institutions, the

petitioners may be permitted to collect

provisional fee for various courses from the

students subject to fixation of fee by respondent

No.2 strictly adhering to Rule 8 of the Rules

2019. No costs."

9. Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher

Education appearing for the appellant/State, submits that the learned

single Judge was not justified in quashing G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021

to the extent it is applicable to the writ petitioners-institutions, by opining 11 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

that Rule 8 of the Rules, 2019, requires personal notice/communication to

be served on the institutions individually. He further submits that on

correct interpretation of Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2019, notices displayed

in the website of the Commission would suffice. He also submits that

categorization of the institutions based on the parameters fixed under

Rule 8(4) of the Rules of 2019 cannot be considered to be illegal or

arbitrary.

10. Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for

the writ petitioners-institutions, supports the impugned judgment and

reiterates the submissions which found favour with the learned single

Judge.

11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties and perused the materials on record.

12. In the instant case, a Notification dated 29.01.2020 was issued by

the Member Secretary of the Commission indicating that the Commission

proposed to review and determine fee structure for UG and PG Degree

programmes, UG and PG Law Programmes, UG and PG Physical Education

programmes in Private Higher Educational Institutions in the State of

Andhra Pradesh for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 and, as such,

the managements of all Private Higher Educational Institutions in the

State of Andhra Pradesh were required to submit relevant data together

with their Audited Financial Statements for the years 2017-18 and 2018-

19 in the prescribed schedules, online from 10.02.2020 onwards as per

the guidelines available in the Commission's website. It was also indicated

that the data shall be furnished programme-wise after payment of

processing charges, as prescribed in the guidelines, through online 12 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

payment gateway. The last date for online submission of data was fixed

as 09.03.2020. Subsequently, on the request of Andhra Pradesh Private

Degree Colleges Management Association dated 27.02.2020, the

processing fee was reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per

Programme for UG and PG Degree Programmes. The time for submission

of data was also extended upto 21.03.2020 at the first instance and again

upto 29.03.2020, on the request of Management Associations.

13. Thereafter, a Notification dated 19.06.2020 was issued by the

Secretary of the Commission stating that pursuant to the Notification

dated 29.01.2020, most of the Private Degree Colleges in the State had

responded to the Notification and paid the processing fee and uploaded

the required data online for fixation of fee for the block period 2020-21

and 2022-23, but some colleges (around 96) had neither paid the

processing fee nor uploaded the required data till then. Accordingly, those

colleges which had not responded to the said Notification were directed to

pay the processing fee and upload the data online on or before

23.06.2020, failing which it was indicated that such colleges shall not be

considered for fixation of fee by the Commission.

14. It appears that the time for uploading the data online was again

extended upto 07.07.2020 without penalty and thereafter by issuing a

public notice dated 10.07.2020, further time was granted till 20.07.2020

subject to payment of penalty of three times of the processing fee, as

could be seen from the Notification dated 20.07.2020 issued by the

Member Secretary of the Commission. However, acceding to the request

of different Management Associations, the last date for uploading the

data with penalty was extended upto 31.07.2020, by the aforesaid 13 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

Notification dated 20.07.2020, and all the Colleges were directed to pay

the penalty of two times of the processing fee and upload the data online

on or before 31.07.2020, failing which it was stated that fee shall not be

determined. Once again, a Notification dated 20.10.2020 was issued by

the Member Secretary of the Commission giving last chance to the

Colleges which had not participated in the process of uploading the data

online, to upload the data by 21.10.2020 by paying penalty of two times

of the processing fee.

15. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2019 is the central issue raised by the writ

petitioners-institutions as well as dealt with by the learned single Judge

and, therefore, it will be appropriate, at this stage, to refer to the said

Rule, which reads as under:

"8. Fee Regulation

(1) The Commission shall call for, from each

Institution, its proposed fee structure well in

advance before the date of issue of

notification for admission for the academic

year along with all the relevant documents

and books of accounts for scrutiny;

(2) The Commission shall decide whether the

fees proposed by the institutions is justified

and does not amount to profiteering or

charging of capitation fee;

                              14                                          HCJ & NJS,J
                                                           W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

(3) The Commission shall be at the liberty to

approve or alter the proposed fee for each

course to be charged by the Institution;

Provided that it shall give the Institution an

opportunity of being heard before fixing any

fee or fees;

(4) The Commission shall 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 Tribes 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.

                                        15                                HCJ & NJS,J
                                                           W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

(5) The Commission shall communicate the fee

structure as determined by it, to the

Government, for notification under Act 5 of

1983;

(6) The fee or scale of the fee determined by the

Commission shall be valid for a period of

three years;

(7) 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. The Higher Educational

Institutions shall not club and/or collect a

fee which is more than the amount

prescribed for that Academic year."

16. The learned single Judge had observed that the Notification dated

29.01.2020 is in the nature of general notification and it was neither

served nor communicated to each Higher Educational Institution. The

learned single Judge had also observed that it is the mandatory

requirement under Clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2019 that the

Commission has to call for the proposed fee structure by informing each

of the institutions and it was evident that the Commission did not call for

the information specifically except requiring the institutions to submit

relevant data together with audited financial statements for the years

2017-18 and 2018-19 in the prescribed schedules online on or before 16 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

09.03.2020. The learned single Judge took note of the stand of the

authorities that the writ petitioner-institution in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 had

paid the processing fee but did not submit the schedules online, while the

writ petitioner-institution in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 had paid processing fee

and submitted the schedules partly. Though the learned single Judge had

noted that an e-mail was addressed on 27.07.2020 at 2.00 p.m. to 270

colleges along with attachment reminding them to pay the processing fee

and get registered for fee fixation, it was erroneously observed that the

institutions were asked not to upload the data or fill the performance

indicator sheet instead of stating that they did not upload the data or fill

the performance indicator sheet. Learned single Judge held that a close

analysis of Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2019 makes it abundantly clear that

communication has to be issued to each college individually calling for

proposed fee structure for various courses, but no such procedure was

followed.

17. Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2019 does not indicate in any manner

that each and every institution has to be individually sent communication

regarding the proposed fee structure. In our considered opinion, a

Notification inviting all the Private Higher Educational Institutions to

submit details along with prescribed fee would suffice to meet the

requirement of calling for the proposed fee structure from each institution

as required under Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2019. All that is required is

issuance of a public notification which is admittedly done in the instant

case. By Notification dated 29.01.2020, it was indicated that the

Commission had proposed to review and determine the fee structure and

the managements of all Private Higher Educational Institutions in the 17 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

State have been notified the steps required to be taken by them in that

regard. It is not the case presented by the writ petitioners-institutions

that they were unaware of the Notification dated 29.01.2020. As can be

seen from the Notifications issued by the Commission pursuant to the

Notification dated 29.01.2020, number of opportunities were granted to

the defaulting colleges to respond to the request of the Commission for

payment of processing fee and uploading of requisite data. Further, the

Notification dated 29.01.2020 would go to show that it was clearly

indicated therein that the institutions which do not submit any proposals

or which are not responsive, shall not be permitted to collect any fee for

the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 for the said programmes. Thus, the

observation made by the learned single Judge that the Notification did

not indicate that the institutions are under an obligation to submit their

proposed fee structure is not correct.

18. Thus, in our considered opinion, quashing of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated

08.01.2021 for the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge to the

extent it is applicable to the writ petitioners-institutions, is not warranted

in the attending facts and circumstances. However, we would like to

observe that by way of abundant caution, henceforth, apart from

displaying the Notification in the website, the Commission may issue an

e-mail individually to all the institutions while any review of fee structure

is undertaken.

19. A perusal of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 2019 would go to show that

the Commission is at liberty to approve or alter the proposed fee for each

course to be charged by the Institution. The proviso to Rule 8(3) provides

that the Commission shall give the Institution an opportunity of being 18 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

heard before fixing any fee or fees. The proviso has to be understood to

mean that in the event of Commission not approving the proposed fee for

each course to be charged by the Institution, an opportunity of hearing is

to be afforded. In the instant case, it appears that a notice was issued to

the President of Andhra Pradesh Private Un-aided Degree Colleges

Association to appear before the Commission on behalf of the member

colleges in order to make appropriate recommendations to the

Government in relation to fixation of pay. Such a procedure followed by

the Commission in issuing notice to the President of the aforesaid

Association cannot be held to be in consonance with the Rules, as rightly

held by the learned single Judge. However, so far as the writ petitioners-

institutions are concerned, as they did not take complete steps in the

matter, non-compliance of the procedure under Rule 8(3) of the Rules

does not come to the aid of the writ petitioners-institutions. However, we

hold that in future exercise of review of fee structure, on the submission

of proposed fee structure by the individual institutions, in the event of the

Commission not approving such proposed fee for each course to be

charged by the institution, an opportunity of hearing must be granted to

such institution before fixing any fee or fees by the Commission itself.

20. The learned single Judge had opined that though no categorization

is prescribed under the Rules, even if it is taken for the sake of

convenience that categorization is required to be made, it must be

preceded by an opportunity to the institution before categorization of

such institution into a particular category and it is in that context, the

learned single Judge had directed that an opportunity of hearing must be

given to the writ petitioners-institutions before their inclusion in a 19 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

particular category. While we agree with the observation of the learned

single Judge, we would further observe that the Commission, in each and

every case where fee structure is proposed by the institution and the

Commission is of the opinion that such fee structure cannot be approved,

must pass a reasoned order for not approving the fee structure proposed

by the institution and proposing a particular fee structure so as to ensure

a transparent process. The institutions which do not propose any fee

structure or are not responsive, in terms of the Notification dated

29.01.2020, were prohibited to collect any fee for the block period 2020-

21 to 2022-23. It is relevant to note that when the writ petitioners-

institutions did not submit requisite information, it is not understood how

one of them was placed in Category-II and the other in Category-III.

21. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the direction No.1 in the

order under challenge. Despite holding so, in order to grant an

opportunity to the writ petitioners, we modify direction No.2 of the

learned single Judge to the effect that within a period of four weeks from

today, the writ petitioners may submit necessary particulars, including

proposed fee structure. In the event requisite steps are taken by the writ

petitioners for fee fixation, the Commission shall proceed to consider fee

fixation in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 2019 and in the light of the

observations made in this order. Till a decision is taken and notified in

accordance with law, direction No.3 as issued by the learned single Judge

would hold the field. In case the writ petitioners do not avail the

opportunity granted to them within the time-frame given in this order, the

petitioner in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 will be entitled to collect fee as

prescribed for Category-III institutions and the petitioner in W.P.No.2629 20 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2021

of 2021 will be entitled to collect fee as prescribed for Category-II

institutions.

22. The writ appeals are, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid

observations and directions. No costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                               NINALA JAYASURYA, J

                                                                                IBL