Mahatma Gandhi Law College, vs State Of Telangana, Rep.By Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6658 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

               WRIT PETITION No.22417 OF 2018

ORDER:

Heard Mr. A. Ushi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. H.B. Ramachandranlal, learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.6 to 10, Mr. Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for

Osmania University appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 and Mr.

Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TAFRC

appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent

No.1 in fixing / continuing the fees payable by the students to the

petitioner College for the academic year 2018-19 as continued in the

letter dated 21.11.2016 of respondent No.1 as illegal, and for a

consequential direction to respondent No.1 to notify and fix the fee

payable by the students of LL.B., Three Year Course at Rs.22,000/-;

Rs.17,000/- for LL.B., Five Year Course and Rs.30,000/- for LL.M.,

Course for the academic year 2018-19 (Block Period of 2016-17 to

2018-19).

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

3. According to the petitioner, LAWCET/PGLCET-2018 was

conducted on 25.05.2018 and results were declared on 14.06.2018.

Respondent No.3 officials may conduct counselling for admission of

students into LL.B., Three-Year, Five-Year and LL.M. Courses during

the relevant time. Thought respondent No.2 fixed the fee and send

the proposal, respondent No.1 failed to notify the same. Therefore,

the students were in dark and they were not in a position to pay fee by

exercising their options properly.

4. Pursuant to the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

vide G.O.Ms.No.6 of Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated

08.01.2007, respondent No.1 framed A.P. Admission and Fee

Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses Offered in Private

Unaided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006. The State of

Telangana had also constituted respondent No.2 i.e., Telangana

Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee and appointed Chairman

and Members. Respondent No.2 has to fix fee by following the

procedure laid down under the aforesaid Rules on consideration of

various aspects.

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

5. In the present case, Petitioner College had submitted

proposals to respondent No.2 along with relevant material showing the

intake of students admitted for the aforesaid period. On consideration

of the same, respondent No.2 has fixed i.e., Rs.22,000/- for Three-

Year LL.B., Course; Rs.17,000/- for Five-Year LL.B., Course and

Rs.30,000/- for LL.M., Course for the block 2016-17 to 2018-19 to the

petitioner College. Though the same was fixed by respondent No.2

and submitted, respondent No.1 failed to notify the same.

6. According to the Petitioner College, respondent No.1 has no

role except notifying the said fee fixed by respondent No.2 by issuing

G.O. Instead of issuing G.O., respondent No.1 slept over the same.

Therefore, the students were kept in dark. They are not in a position

to exercise their options properly. Even for the earlier block period

also, since respondent No.1 failed to notify the fee, therefore, the

Petitioner College has filed writ petition and obtained interim order.

Even for the academic year 2017-18, the petitioner had filed a writ

petition vide W.P.No.20813 of 2017, questioning the action of

respondent No.1 in not fixing/continuing fee payable by the students

to the petitioner college for the academic year 2018-19, as continued

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

in the letter dated 21.11.2016. This Court granted interim order. The

said writ petition is also pending. Under the said circumstances, the

petitioner filed the present writ petition.

7. The petitioner herein has also filed an interlocutory

application vide I.A.No.1 of 2018 seeking a direction to permit the

petitioner's college to collect fee as determined and fixed by

respondent No.2 payable by the students for the LL.B.. Three-Year

Course at Rs.22,000/-; for B.L., Five-Year Course at Rs.17,000/-; and

for LL.M., Course at Rs.30,000/- for the academic year 2018-19, and

for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 to indicate the fee as

fixed by respondent No.2 during the admission of students at the time

of counseling. This Court granted interim order on 02.07.2018.

According to learned counsel, pursuant to the said interim order, the

Petitioner College has collected the aforesaid fee as fixed by

respondent No.2. According to him, respondent No.1 has slept over

the recommendation of respondent No.2 by notifying the same which

is a formality.

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

8. During the pendency of the present writ petition, respondent

Nos.6 to 10 have filed implead application vide I.A. No.1 of 2021

stating that they are the students of the petitioner college, they have

completed their three-year law course during the period 2016-19.

Even on completion of their course and payment of fee, the petitioner

is not returning original certificates pertaining to SSC, Intermediate,

Degree and LL.B. Degree. Therefore, they are seeking a direction to

the petitioner college to return the aforesaid certificates. According to

them, the petitioner college has no power to withhold the said

certificates.

9. Despite granting ample opportunity, respondent No.1 did not

file counter. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ

petition against respondent No.1 is that though respondent No.2 fixed

the fee and sent the proposal, respondent No.1 did not notify the same

by issuing a G.O. Respondent No.1 did not produce a copy of the said

G.O. notifying the fee as fixed by respondent No.2 for the academic

year 2018-19.

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

10. In several matters, respondent No.2 is not fixing the fee as

per the procedure laid down under G.O.Ms.6 dated 08.01.2007 and in

some cases though respondent No.2 fixed the fee, respondent No.1 is

not notifying the same by way of issuing a G.O. As rightly contended

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, respondent No.1 has no

role in fixing the fee and it is for respondent No.2 has to fix the fee

considering several aspects in terms of the aforesaid Rules, 2006.

Though, respondent No.2 submitted proposals, respondent No.1 did

not notify the same. Due to the said inaction on the part of respondent

No.1, the petitioner and several other colleges are coming to this

Court by filing writ petitions. Students are in dark. They are not in a

position to exercise their options properly by going through the fee

structure. In view of the same, respondent No.1 shall look into the

matter and issue G.Os., from time to time notifying the fee fixed by

respondent No.2 on receipt of proposals as early as possible, so that

the students can exercise their options properly.

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

11. In Yeachu Sunil v. The State of Telangana, represented

by its Chief Secretary1 filed against the respondents including the

petitioner college herein, this Court, recording the submissions made

by the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and also

Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, held as

follows:

"7. There is some merit in the concern expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the ambiguity in applicability of fee, lot of students may have been disturbed and were not sure in taking admission as there was no clarity on fee to be paid.

8. In view of the clarification now issued by the Government, the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education, may issue a statement through daily newspapers about the decision of the Government in observing the fee structure already determined for previous academic year. The Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee is also directed to give vide publicity through daily newspapers and also to upload the fee structure on the website of TSAFRC and

. Order dated 22.11.2016 in W.P. No.39922 of 2016

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

Convener, LAWCET and also intimate to all the Law Colleges."

12. As discussed above, the present writ petition pertains to the

academic year 2018-19. This Court had granted interim order on

02.07.2018 i.e., to collect the fee as determined and fixed by

respondent No.2 payable by the students for LL.B., Three-Year

Course at Rs.22,000/-; LL.B. Five-Year Course at Rs.17,000/- and

LL.M. Course at Rs.30,000/- for the academic year 2018-19, and also

a direction to respondent No.3 Convener to indicate the fee as fixed by

respondent No.2 during the admissions of students at the time of

counseling. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had

collected the aforesaid fee in terms of the interim order dated

02.07.2018.

13. Now, this Court has to address the issue raised by

respondent Nos.6 to 10, the students of the Petitioner College. It is

relevant to note that respondent Nos.6 to 10 have filed a writ petition

vide W.P. No.140 of 2020 to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1

to 6 therein in taking action on the representation of the petitioners

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

dated 01.08.2019 as illegal. This Court recording the submissions

made by learned Standing Counsel for the Osmania University with

regard to the filing of the present writ petition and granting interim

order therein and disposed of the said writ petition vide order

28.01.2020 granting liberty to the petitioner to file implead petition in

the present writ petition and to ventilate their grievance with regard to

enhancement of fee being sought for by the petitioner college.

14. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.6 to 10

have filed an appeal vide W.A. No.216 of 2020. During the course of

hearing in the said appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner herein

brought to the notice of Division Bench about the pendency of the

present writ petition and interim order dated 02.07.2018 granted by

this Court. He has also made a submission that the petitioner college

is ready to release the certificates to respondent Nos.6 to 10 if they

furnish bank guarantee for the disputed / enhanced amount. Learned

counsel for respondent Nos.6 to10 herein had agreed for the said

proposal. Considering the said facts, the Division Bench of this Court

had disposed of the said writ appeal on 08.10.2020 leaving it open to

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

respondent Nos.6 and 8 to 10 to furnish their respective bank

guarantees for the disputed/enhanced amount. Upon furnishing such

bank guarantees by them, their LL.B. (3 Years) Course Certificates

shall be released to them forthwith. Since appellant No.2 therein i.e.,

respondent No.7 herein i.e., Mr. G. Giridhar, is stated to have already

paid full amount, his LL.B. (3 Years) Course certificate shall be

released forthwith. The Division Bench also made it clear that the

order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of directing respondent

Nos.6 to 10 to get themselves impleaded in the present writ petition is

not interfered with. They are at liberty to get themselves impleaded in

this writ petition and subject to the outcome of this writ petition, the

amounts covered under the bank guarantees being furnished by

respondent Nos.6 and 8 to 10 shall be released to them in whose

favour the writ petition is decided.

15. It is relevant to note that during the course of hearing, it is

brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for respondent

Nos.6 to 10 that they have impleaded in the present writ petition and

they are waiting for the outcome of the present writ petition. They

have not furnished bank guarantee. According to them, the petitioner

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

college has no power or authority to withhold the certificates and law

does not permit them to do so. According to them, they have paid fee

as fixed by respondent No.2.

16. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court directed

learned counsel for the petitioner to produce statement with regard to

the fee to be paid by respondent Nos.6 to 10, the actual fee paid by

them and the difference of amount to be paid. Pursuant to the same,

the petitioner has furnished the said information in a tabular form

which is as under:

Sl. Name of the Class Fee to be paid for entire Actual Difference No student three year course fee paid of amount due

01. Lingaiah Miryala LL.B., 3YDC 67,500/- (Rs.22,500 x 3) 34,500/- 33,000/-

02.   G. Giridhar            -do-                -do-              67,500/-        --
03.   V. Sampathkumar        -do-                -do-              36,300/-    31,200/-
04.   B.Subba Reddy          -do-                -do-                -do-        -do-
05.   Bingi Dasharatha       -do-                -do-                -do-        -do-

17. In view of the above, the question that falls for

consideration before this Court is, whether the petitioner can be

withheld the certificates of respondent Nos.6 to 10 on the ground of

non-payment of fee fixed by respondent No.2.

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

18. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra. In

S.Muthukamatchi v. The Director of Technical Education, Anna

University2, the Madras High Court at Madurai Bench categorically

held that certificates of student is her/his property. College cannot

detain the said certificates at any rate. Even if the College has any

monetary claim, the rejection of the said certificates is not the method

by which the claim can be enforced. There is no lien on the

certificates of the students. With the said findings, the Madras High

Court directed the College to return the certificates and granted liberty

to the College to claim fee by availing legal remedies. The same view

was taken by the Madras High Court in R. Pradeep Raj v.

Commissioner, the Directorate of Technical Education3, and this

Court in Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja v. The State of Telangana4 and

D.Vaishnavi v. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal

Secretary Health Medical and Family welfare, Hyderabad5 and

also the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Andhra

. Order dated 18.12.2012 in W.P.(MD) No.14394 of 2012

. 2019 SCC OnLine Mad. 9385

. Order dated 24.06.2022 in W.P.No.2930 of 2022

. Order dated 24.01.2020 in W.P. No.21137 of 2019

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

Pradesh Private Unaided Schools Management Association v. The

State of Andhra Pradesh6.

19. The petitioner failed to cite/refer any rule or provision of

any law, as per which it can withheld the certificates of students on the

ground of non-payment of fee. Even, the official respondents also

failed to show any provision to the said effect. Therefore, there is no

law which permits the College to withhold the certificates of a student

on the ground of non-payment of fee. Thus, the petitioner college

cannot withhold the certificates of respondent Nos.6 to 10 on the

ground of non-payment of fee.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also the principle

laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered

view that the action of petitioner college in withholding the

certificates of the students/respondent Nos.6 to 10 on the ground of

non-payment fee is illegal and unjustified.

21. The present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of

directing the petitioner college to return the certificates of respondent

. Order dated 27.10.2021 in W.P. No.9606 of 2021

KL,J W.P. No.22417 of 2018

Nos.6 to 10 (including respondent No.7, who claims to have paid the

entire amount, if not already returned) within one (01) week from the

date of receipt of copy of this order. However, liberty is granted to the

petitioner college to claim the difference of amount, if any, due by

respondent Nos.6 to 10 (including respondent No.7, who claims to

have paid entire amount), strictly in accordance with law. At the same

time, respondent No.1 is directed to notify the fee fixed by respondent

No.2 for the academic year 2018-19 forthwith if not already not

notified. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

petition shall also stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 9th December, 2022 Mgr