Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Pradesh Higher Education ... vs Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering ... on 3 July, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010008812024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench
AT AMARAVATI Sr.No:-138
[3443]
WRIT APPEAL NO: 182 of 2024
ALONG WITH
WRIT APPEAL NOs: 118, 183, 187, 191, 197 of 2024
WRIT APPEAL NO: 182 of 2024
Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory And ...Appellant
Monitoring Commission,
Vs.
Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering Colleges ...Respondent(s)
Managements Association and Others
**********
C SUDESH ANAND, Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s)
SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI, PENJURI VENUGOPAL (SC FOR JNTUA), GP
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP), Advocate(s) for Respondent(s)
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
DATE : 3rd July, 2024.
PC:
The present Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against
common judgment and order dated 15.12.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.32909 of
2022 and batch. The petitioners had challenged the recommendations made
by the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring
Commission in regard to the fee chargeable by the notified colleges which are
running professional courses in engineering. One of the arguments raised by
learned counsel for the petitioners before the learned single Judge appears to
have been that principles of natural justice were violated, inasmuch as the
2
HCJ & NJSJ
WA_182_2024_batch
worksheets prepared in regard to notified colleges based upon the information
supplied was not made available to the colleges.
2. The learned single Judge by virtue of judgment and order impugned,
directed the Commission to not only provide the worksheets to the colleges
concerned, but also issued directions to the Commission to consider various
aspects including the rate of inflation, the increased expenditure, actual
average intake instead of the sanctioned strength, accreditations,
improvement of amenities including research oriented facilities etc.,. The
learned single Judge also held that the slabs prescribed by the Commission in
regard to certain expenditures could not have been fixed for any category of
expenditure submitted by the institution and that the fee should have been
fixed on the basis of the relevant data, as has been provided by the
institutions.
3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Veera Reddy, appearing for the
appellants Commission, states that the judgment and order impugned is
unsustainable in law. It was urged that the reliefs granted by the learned
single Judge were beyond the scope of the reliefs that had been claimed by
the petitioners in the writ petitions.
4. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents,
Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, submitted that the recommendations had yet not
been accepted or rejected by the Government and in case they were rejected,
the matter would come back to the Commission for reconsideration.
5. It is not denied by learned counsel of either of the parties that the
recommendations earlier made by virtue of communication dated 16.06.2023,
in regard to block period 2023-2026, were returned by the Government and
3
HCJ & NJSJ
WA_182_2024_batch
that after reconsideration, according to the learned counsel for the appellants,
the same were submitted vide communication dated 19.07.2023.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader, Ms. Pranathi, appearing for the
State, however, submits that she had instructions to say that at present no
recommendations were pending with the Government, which can be
considered. This fact is denied by Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellants and it was urged that not only were
recommendations resubmitted but that even a reminder was given vide a
communication dated 26.06.2024, to the Government.
7. Mr. B. Adinaraya Rao, learned Senior Counsel, at this stage very fairly
stated that the factum of acceptance or rejection of the recommendations
made by the Commission should first be ascertained from the Government
without prejudice to the arguments that were urged by him, with a view to
support and buttress the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge. He
was also fair in stating that the petitioners/institutions would continue to
charge the same fee for the year 2024, as has been fixed by the Commission
and recommended to the Government, by virtue of communication dated
16.06.2023, till the matter is finally considered by the Government and a
decision is taken at the earliest.
8. We, therefore, direct the Government to take an appropriate decision at
the earliest, preferably within two weeks from today, on the recommendations
made considering the fact that the process of counselling is already underway
and that both the institutions and the students should be aware of the extent of
their right to receive fee and the obligation of the students to pay the fee to
that extent.
4
HCJ & NJSJ
WA_182_2024_batch
9. Learned Senior Counsel for respondents, further makes a statement
that judgment and order which is impugned in the present writ appeals shall
not be pressed in contempt proceedings.
10. List on 18.07.2024.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.
NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
SSN
