Amol Pralhad Choudhari vs The State Of Mah. & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8283 Bom

                                                 *1*                          901wp2310o02


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 2310 OF 2002

Amol s/o Pralhad Chaudhari,
Age : 23 years, 
Occupation : Intership,
R/o Ganesh Colony, 35,
Jalgaon.
                                                  ...PETITIONER

          -VERSUS-

1         The State of Maharashtra.

2         The Executive Officer,
          State of Maharashtra.

3         Chaitanya Ayurved College.
          Through its Principal
          Chaitanyavan Sakegaon,
          Tq.Bhusawal, District Jalgaon.

4         The North Maharashtra University,
          Jalgaon.
          (Deleted as per order dated 11.02.2003).
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

                                        ...
                  Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri A.G.Talhar. 
              AGP for Respondents 1 and 2 : Smt.M.A.Deshpande. 
           Advocate for Respondent 3 : Shri H.F.Pawar and Shri V.P.Raje.
                                        ...

                                       CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                        AND
                                                 SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE :- 31st October, 2017

Oral Judgment :

                                                       *2*                            901wp2310o02




1               By this petition, the  Petitioner seeks to challenge the  letter 

dated 09.04.2002 issued by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also seeks to

challenge the letter dated 30.04.2002 issued by Respondent No.3 by

which, the Petitioner has been directed to pay the enhanced fees made

applicable to the third year BAMS course.

2 The substantive prayers put forth by the Petitioner in

paragraphs 16-C, 16-D and 16-E read as under:-

"(C) By appropriate writ, order or direction the letter issued by the respondent herein dated 9th April 2002 be quashed and set aside, and consequently the letter issued by the respondent No.2 and 3 dated 30.04.2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (D) By appropriate writ order or direction this Hon'ble Court may please be declared that the action of the respondent herein in respect of imposing additional fees on the student of IInd and IIIrd year be declared illegal.

(E) That, the respondent No.2 and 3 be directed to refund the additional fees of Rs.29,000/- to the petitioner herein with 13.5% rate of interest."

3 We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates

for the respective sides.

4 The Petitioner was a student of BAMS course, which is for a

duration of four and half years comprising of nine semesters. The

Petitioner was required to pay annual fees of Rs.53,600/- for the first year

and a like amount for the second year. On 05.01.2001, the State of

*3* 901wp2310o02

Maharashtra introduced the Government Resolution with reference to

Respondent No.3/ Ayurved College. It appears from the Government

Resolution that the fee structuring for the Ayurved Course is to be revised

every three years by the State. As such, the fee structuring was revised and

made applicable from the academic year 2000-2001 onwards.

5 The grievance of the Petitioner is that he had acquired

admission to the BAMS course in 1997. He had failed in two subjects in

the annual examination in April, 2001. He appeared for the said two

subjects and completed his third year of BAMS in November, 2001. The

contention is that since he had already taken admission in 1997 and

merely because he had failed in a few subjects due to which he had to

keep terms and appear for the said subjects in the examination held in

April, 2002, the Government Resolution dated 05.01.2001 should not be

made applicable retrospectively.

6 The learned AGP and Shri Pawar, learned Advocate

appearing on behalf of the Institution, submit that it is for the Government

to revise the fees which is permissible. Prior to the Government Resolution

at issue, the fee structuring was revised for a similar period of three years.

Though the Government Resolution has been issued on 05.01.2001 and is

made applicable from the academic year 2000-2001 for a further period of

three years, it was in routine course that the Committee constituted for

revising the fee structuring, has made the said revision effective from the

*4* 901wp2310o02

academic year 2000-2001 as the earlier fee structure was upto the

academic year 1999-2000.

7 In view of the submissions of the learned Advocate for the

Petitioner, we called upon him to state as to whether, his fees structure

was specifically fixed for the three years course, which spans over four and

half calender years and as to whether, the Petitioner was informed about a

specific quantum of fees that he was supposed to pay for each of the

academic years. The learned Advocate submits, on instructions, that there

was no such contract between the Petitioner and the Education Institution

by which a specific fee structure was settled for the three academic years.

8 We, therefore, find that the Petitioner was not assured of a

specific fee structure that would be made applicable for each of the

academic years, so to say that he was not assured of a particular quantum

of fees for the period that he would spend in the BAMS course in the said

college. We do not find from any document placed before us that the

Petitioner was assured of a particular quantum of fees to be charged so as

to preclude the Respondent No.3 Institution or the State from revising the

fees structure.

9 Even otherwise, the contention of the Petitioner that he was

repeating the course since he had failed in one academic year and

therefore, he cannot be charged the revised fees, cannot be considered.

The Petitioner was aware that for each admission and in a particular

*5* 901wp2310o02

academic curriculum, he was required to pay the annual fees as per the

fee structure applicable. He, therefore, cannot take a stand that since he

has failed in a particular academic year, he should be charged as per the

old fee structure applicable earlier to the academic year in which he had

failed.

10 It is further informed that the Petitioner has already passed

out and is now a practicing Doctor for the last about 15 years. The revised

fees that were made applicable, have already been paid by the Petitioner

in 2001 itself.

11 None of the learned Advocates have placed before us any

specific Government Resolution or cited a provision of law that would

preclude the State from revising the fee structure, inasmuch as, no judicial

pronouncement has been brought to our notice by which the Court has

taken a different view than the one which we are taking in this petition.

12 Considering the above, we do not find that the impugned

action could be termed as being violative of the rights of the Petitioner.

13 This Writ Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore,

dismissed. Rule is discharged.

kps (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)