Karnataka High Court
M P Birla Institute Of Management vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7421-DB
WP No. 51832 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 51832 OF 2019 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
M.P. BIRLA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATE, BHARTIYA VIDYA BHAVAN
No.43, RACECOURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
DR. S. SATHYANARAYANA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
by
CHANNEGOWDA
BENGALURU-560 001
PREMA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
2. ADMISSION OVERSEEING COMMITTEE
2ND FLOOR, KEA BUILDING
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3. FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE
2ND FLOOR, KEA BUILDING
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7421-DB
WP No. 51832 of 2019
4. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ROOM No.645, 6TH FLOOR
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R4:
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (a) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 14.11.2019
(ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT,
KEA/AOC/90/2019-20 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7421-DB
WP No. 51832 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the
writ petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner in WP No.51832/2019
that the notice which is impugned in this writ petition
though it is styled as a 'notice' is actually an order visiting
adverse civil consequences on the petitioner and that as
such it is bad for non adherence with the principle of
natural justice. It is submitted that the notice calls upon
the petitioner - institution to refund the excess fee
collected from the students admitted for study of MBA
Course for the academic Year 2019-20 within a period of
15 days, failing which, the Institute called upon to show
cause why action should not be initiated against the
college under the provisions of Prohibition of Capitation
Fee Act and Admission Rules, 2006. It is submitted that
NC: 2025:KHC:7421-DB
the notice is issued after coming to the conclusion that
excess fees have been charged and this conclusion is
arrived at without putting the Institution on notice and
without considering the contentions.
3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel
that the notice states that fees have been fixed for the
MBA courses in Government seats by the State
Government and that the petitioner-Institution is collected
the fees in excess of what has been fixed. It is submitted
by the learned senior counsel that the fixation of fee is to
be done by the Fee Regulatory Committee in terms of the
Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation
of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006 ('the
2006 Act' for short). It is further contended that no such
fee had been fixed in respect of MBA Course for the year in
question, by the Fee Regulatory Committee and therefore,
the notice itself is unsustainable.
4. Further, it is submitted that in case there is a
complaint with regard to collection of fee in excess of what
NC: 2025:KHC:7421-DB
is fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee. It is for the Fee
Regulatory Committee to take action in terms of Section
7(4) of the 2006 Act and the Admission Overseeing
Committee would not have the power of the jurisdiction to
exercise the power under Section 7(4) of the 2006 Act. It
is contended that the direction to refund the excess fee
could have been issued only by the Fee Regulatory
Committee and not by the Admission Overseeing
Committee.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents on the other hand contend that the fees
have already been fixed in respect of Government Seats
and other seats as evident from Annexure-A proceedings
in WP No.41217/2019. It is submitted that the said
fixation of fee for the year 2018-19 has been made
applicable for the academic year 2019-20 as well and
therefore the contention that the fees are not been fixed
by the Fee Regulatory Committee would not be sustainable
at all.
NC: 2025:KHC:7421-DB
6. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that the principle contention raised by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that
the Institution has not been given a chance to explain as
to how the fixation and collection of fee by them was just
and proper and that the contentions of the Institution have
not been considered at all before coming to the conclusion
that fees have been fixed in excess. In view of the said
contentions raised, we are of the opinion that we need not
consider any of the contentions raised on the merits,
including the question of jurisdiction of the committee. We
are of the opinion that it is for the Admission Advisory
Committee to consider the contentions raised by the
petitioner before coming to any conclusion with regard to
the factual aspects of the matter. In the above view of
matter, we are of the opinion that Annexure-A in WP
No.51832/2019, which is the notice issued by the
Admission Advisory Committee, is to be considered as a
show cause notice by disregarding the last paragraph
thereof. The petitioner who is already on notice of the
NC: 2025:KHC:7421-DB
allegations will be permitted to submit a written
representation as against the said notice within three
weeks from today and the contentions shall be considered
by the Admission Advisory Committee and appropriate
orders shall be passed in accordance with law after
hearing the petitioner within two weeks thereafter as well.
The committee shall pass orders after considering all
contentions as early as possible.
7. In view of the fact that the Annexure-A has
been treated as show cause notice and on assurance of
the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
that the amounts if any, found due after appropriate
adjudication shall be made good by the petitioner, the
amounts paid pursuant to the interim order dated
10.12.2019 shall be refunded to the petitioner. It is made
clear that the direction to refund the amounts paid
pursuant to the interim order is being made in view of the
fact that the petitioner was not heard and contentions
NC: 2025:KHC:7421-DB
were not considered before the order is passed and will
have no bearing on the merits of the matter.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RAK,
