Institute Of Professional ... vs State Of Orissa And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3877 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P.(C) No. 10489 of 2023

Institute of Professional Studies     .....                                        Petitioner
and Research, Cuttack
                                                                 Mr. D.P. Dash, Advocate
                                      Vs.
State of Orissa and others            .....                                 Opposite Parties
                                                                    Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
             CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                    MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN
                                                 ORDER

20.04.2023

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

01.

2. Heard Mr. D.P. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties .

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the notification dated 30.12.2022 issued by the State Government through its Skill Development and Technical Education Department under Annexure-5, wherein the academic fee for M.B.A. course of the petitioner-institution has been fixed to Rs.50,000/- per annum from the academic session 2022-23. The petitioner further seeks direction to the opposite party no.1 to retain the fee structure, as determined/approved by the Fee Structure Committee vide Annexure-4 series, i.e. Rs.1,09,000/- per annum for the academic session 2022-23.

4. Mr. D.P. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner-institution is a professional institution imparting education in MBA and as per the recommendation

made by the fee structure committee, the Government, vide notification dated 12.07.2007, fixed the fee structure of the petitioner-institution at Rs.90,000.00 and from that date onwards, the students were being admitted in the institution by depositing Rs.90,000/- towards fees for prosecuting their study in MBA. For the academic session 2022-23 the fee structure committee, vide Annexure-4 series dated 19.07.2022, recommended the fee for Rs.1,09,000.00 so far as the petitioner-institution is concerned for imparting MBA Course. But the State Government reduced it to Rs.50,000.00, vide order impugned dated 30.12.2022 under Annexure-5, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further contended that in the event the fee structure for prosecuting MBA course is reduced to Rs.50,000.00, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner- institution.

5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that even though the fee structure committee has recommended vide Annexure-4 for Rs.1,09,000.00 to prosecute MBA course in the petitioner-institution, but that ipso facto is not binding on the State Government. The State Government has to take into consideration the different factors and has got power to reduce/enhance the academic fees of an institution and applying the same, the State has reduced the fee to Rs.50,000.00 as against the recommendation made by the fee structure committee of Rs.1,09,000.00. That itself is well within the jurisdiction and the power of the State. The petitioner-institution cannot in a way question the same. It is further contended that such reduction of fee structure is in the interest of the students at large, who are the beneficiaries under the law. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the State Government by reducing the fee structure recommended by the fee structure committee vide Annexure-5 dated 30.12.2022. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the factual matrix as has been advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, undisputedly in 2007 the fee structure committee had recommended for deposit of Rs.90,000.00 per annum for prosecuting the study of MBA in petitioner-institution and accordingly, the students were prosecuting their studies by paying such amount. Again in the year 2022, the recommendation was made by the fee structure committee under Annexure-4 and, so far as petitioner-institution is concerned, it was recommended for Rs.1,09,000.00 per annum, but the same was reduced by the State Government to Rs.50,000.00.

7. The argument is advanced by Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment in the case of P.A. Inamdar & others v. State of Maharastra and others, AIR 2005 SC 3226, the recommendation of the fee structure committee should have been accepted by the State Government without creating any hindrance. When this Court called upon learned counsel for the petitioner to show where such direction has been issued by the apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out the same to this Court. On the other hand, in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra) it has been held that in the larger interest and welfare of the student community to promote merit, achieve excellence and curb mal- practices, it would be permissible to regulate admissions by providing a centralized and single window procedure. Such a procedure, to a large extent, can secure grant of merit based admissions on a transparent basis. Needless to say, keeping in view the above observations of the apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra), the legislation has been enshrined by the State Legislature to provide for the regulation of admission, fixation of fee, prohibition of capitation fee, reservation in admission and for other measures to ensure equity and excellence in professional educational

institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, called "The Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007" under Orissa Act 4 of 2007, which was notified on 17th April 2007. Sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the said Act states about the Fee Structure Committee. Needless to say that the constitution of the fee structure committee is there to regulate the fees of the students and, as such, on perusal of the said provision of the Act, nothing has been mentioned with regard to putting a restriction on the State Government from enhancing/ reducing the fee structure recommended by the committee. Rather Sub-section (7) of Section-6 makes it clear that the fee fixed by the committee under Sub-section (6) after government approval, shall be binding on such institution for a period of three years. Thereby, the Government has got the right to approve or disapprove the recommendation made by the fee structure committee. Thereby, when the fee structure committee has recommended Rs.1,09,000.00 for payment of fees, so far as admission to MBA course in petitioner-institution is concerned, the said fee structure has not been approved by the Government. Thereby, the same has been reduced to Rs.50,000.00 in exercise of that power. In view of such position, the relief sought by the petitioner seeking mandamus to the State Government to approve the fee structure determined by the fee structure committee is absolutely misconceived one and, as such, the power of the State Government cannot be abrogated by any authority, when statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner.

8. The further contention of Mr. Dash is that reduction of fee structure has been made by the State Government in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. According to him, when the fee structure committee had recommended for the petitioner-institution a particular fee, if the same has been reduced by the Government, without making approval of the recommendation made by fee structure committee, there is gross violation

of the principle of natural justice. But fact remains, in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (7) of Section 6, there is no need of compliance of any natural justice. Thereby, the argument so advanced is absolutely misconceived one, inasmuch as this Court is not inclined to hold that the principle of natural justice is required to be complied with while the State Government exercised its power under Sub-section (7) of Section 6 of 2007 Act.

9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that relief sought by the petitioner is not admissible. Accordingly the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed.

                                                 (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                      JUDGE


Arun                                                (M.S. RAMAN)
                                                       JUDGE