Chanderbala Modi Academy vs The Fee Regulatory Committee, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 997 Guj

      C/LPA/103/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2022



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 103 of 2022
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21186 of 2019
                                    With
                 CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
                In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 103 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI                                    Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE                           Sd/-
================================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                         No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy               No
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question               No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                  CHANDERBALA MODI ACADEMY
                           Versus
      THE FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE, SURAT ZONE & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.DIPAK B PATEL(3744) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
                        Date : 31/01/2022
                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant - writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special

C/LPA/103/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2022

Civil Application No.21186 of 2019 by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition by upholding the order dated 8.8.2019 passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee, Surat Zone as well as the order dated 4.10.2019 passed by the Fee Revision Committee.

2. Mr. Dipak B. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant - writ petitioner would submit that under Rule 7(2) of the Gujarat Self Financed Schools (Regulation of Fees) Rules, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"], the authority could grant three adjournments, however, in the present case, only two adjournments had been granted by the authority concerned and also in absence of any material, the order dated 8.8.2019 was passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee. He would submit that even under Rule 14(4) of the said Rules, the revisional authority could have considered the material produced before it, which had not been dealt with by the revisional authority. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in accepting the observations made in both the orders passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee as well as the Fee Revision Committee.

3. We have heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant - writ petitioner and perused the orders passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee, the Fee Revision Committee as well as the order impugned in this appeal.

4. It is an undisputed fact that the Fee Regulatory Committee passed the impugned order dated 8.8.2019 i.e. after 18 months from calling the petitioner to submit the details, however, the petitioner did not care to avail the opportunity and therefore, it

C/LPA/103/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2022

cannot be said that sufficient opportunity was not given to the writ petitioner to produce the documentary evidence in support of its case. The Rule 7(2) of the said Rules is not mandatory in nature that three adjournments must be granted, but it mentions that not more than three adjournments shall be granted. In this contest, as stated hereinabove, the Fee Regulatory Committee had waited for 18 months and thereafter had passed the impugned order.

4.1 It may also be noted at this stage that the Fee Revision Committee had dealt with the documentary evidence produced before it, which transpires from its observation in para-12 of the its order.

4.2 The reasoning part of the orders passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee as well as the Fee Revision Committee are reproduced in detail in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Apart from the aforesaid findings, learned Single Judge has specifically observed that Fee Committee can consider the expenditure made by the petitioner of which details were produced before Revisional Committee. Para-8 of the order reads as under:-

"8. However, it is clarified that the Fee Regulatory Committee can consider the expenditure incurred by the petitioner during the year 2017- 18 and 2018-19 on the basis of the documentary evidence to be produced by the petitioner while determining the fees for subsequent years in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 2017."

5. In view of above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge impugned in present appeal. In view of above observations, present appeal is dismissed as being meritless.

C/LPA/103/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2022

In view of disposal of main appeal, Civil Application for stay would not survive. Accordingly, civil application for stay stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(A.J.DESAI, J)

Sd/-

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN