FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEEversusKALOL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, ETC

                   [2011] 11 S.C.R. 829


             FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE                          A
                             v.
       KALOL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, ETC.
            (Civil Appeal No. 8543 of 2011)
                   OCTOBER 11, 2011.
                                                               B
     [R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

    GUJARAT PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL EDUCA-
TIONAL COLLEGES OR INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION OF
ADMISSION AND FIXATION OF FEES) ACT, 2007:                     C

      s. 10(3) - Fee structure - Revision of- Claim by private
unaided educational institutions for revision of fee of their
students on account of higher emoluments payable to
teaching and non-teaching staff on the basis of the 0
recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission - Held: The
institutions are entitled to collect the extra cost on account of
payment of revised pay and allowances to the teaching and
non-teaching staff through the fees collected from the students
and this aspect will be taken into consideration by the Fee E
Regulatory Committee while determining the fees for the
academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and •
subsequent period of three years in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and the observations made in the
judgment - The fee structure determined by the Fee
 Regulatory Committee for the years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 F
 and 2010-2011 shall be binding on the unaided professional
educational colleges or institutions for a period of three years
and the fee so determined shall be applicable to a student
who is admitted to a professional educational college or
institution in that academic year and shall not be revised till G
the completion of his professional course in that college or
institution - Education/Educational Institutions.


                            829                                H
    830      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A      The respondents-unaided private professional and
  educational colleges and institutions in the State of
  Gujarat, sought revision of the fee determined by the Fee
  Regulatory Committee in the State of Gujarat for the three
  academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 for
B students admitted in their colleges and institutions, on the
  ground that they were required to pay higher emoluments
  to their teaching and non-teaching staff w.e.f. 1.1.2006 on
  the basis of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
  Commission, but the Fee Regulatory Committee declined
c to revise the fees. The respondents-colleges/institutions
  filed writ petitions before the High Court, which held that
  the respondents-institutions were liable to pay salary and
  allowances to their teaching and non-teaching staff on
  the basis of the recommendations made by the Sixth Pay
  Commission and this would be one of the criteria to be
0
  taken into consideration for determination of fee by the
  Fee Regulatory Committee. The High Court set aside the
  orders of the Fee Regulatory Committee and remitted the
  matters to it for consideration and decision afresh in
  accordance with the observations made in the orders of
E the High Court. Aggrieved, the Fee Regulatory Committee
  tias filed the appeals.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court

F      HELD: 1.1. The Fee Regulatory Committee cannot
  overlook the statutory provisions in s. 10(3) of the Gujarat
  Professional Technical Educational Colleges or
  Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of
  Fees) Act, 2007 that the fee structure so determined by
  the Fee Regulatory Committee shall be binding on the
G unaided professional educational colleges or institutions
  for a period of three years and the fee so determined shall
  be applicable to a student who is admitted to a
  professional educational college or institution in that
  academic year and shall not be revised till the completion
H
  FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE v. KALOL INSTITUTE           831
             OF MANAGEMENT, ETC.

  of his professional course in that college or institution.   A
  The High Court, therefore, could not have directed
. revision of the fees already fixed by the Fee Regulatory
  Committee for the academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010
  and 2010-2011 contrary to the said statutory provisions.
  [Para 8) [836-D·G]                                           B
       1.2. Nonetheless, the unaided private professional
 and technical colleges or institutions were entitled to
 recover the extra cost on account of payment of revised
 pay and allowances to the teaching and non-teaching C
 staff through the fees collected from the students and
 this could be done only by enhancing the fees from the
 students for the academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013
 and 2013-2014 and for period of three years thereafter.
 Exactly how much of this cost would be recovered
 through the fees collected from the students during the D
 first period of the three years and how much of this cost
 would be recovered through fees collected from the.
 students during the second period of three years can
 only be appropriately worked out by the Fee Regulatory
 Committee keeping in mind the interests of both the E
 colleges/institutions and the students. [para 8) [836-F-H;
 837-A-B]

     1.3. The impugned orders of the High Court are set
 aside and it is directed that the increase in cost suffered   F
 by the respondents-colleges/institutions on account of
 the higher pay and allowances payable to the teaching
 and non-teaching staff on the basis of the
 recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission will be
 taken into consideration by the Fee Regulatory                G
 Committee while determining the fees for the academic
 years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and
 subsequent period of three years in accordance with the
 provisions of the Act and the observations made in the
 judgment. [para 9) [837 -B-D]
                                                               H
    832       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 11 S.C R.


A     Islamic Academy of Education and Another v. State of
  Kamataka and Others 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 474=(2003) 6
  SCC 697; T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of
  Kamataka and Others 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 = (2002) 8
  SCC 481; and P.A. lnamdar and Others v. State of
B Maharashtra and Others 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 = (2005)
  6 sec 537 - cited.
                         Case Law Reference:
          2003 (2) Suppl. SCR474        cited          para 5
c         2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587       cited          para 6
          2005 (2) Suppl. SCR603        cited          para 6
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    8543 of 2011.
D
        From the Judgment & Order dated 1.10.2010 of the High
    Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 9242 of 2010.

                                WITH
E
        8544, 8545, 8546, 8547, 8548, 8549, 8550, 8551, 8552,
    8553,8554,8555,8556,8557,8558,8559,8560,8561,8562,
    8563, 8564, 8565 and 8566 of 2011.

        Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, D.N. Ray, Manisha Lav Kumar,
F   Lokesh K. Choudhary and Sumita Ray for the Appellant.

        Dushyant A. Dave, K.V. Vishwanathan, Dhaval C. Dave,
    A. Venayagam Balan, Nikhil Goel for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
          A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. These are appeals by special leave against the
  impugned orders of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High
H Court.
 FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE v. KALOL INSTITUTE               833
      OF MANAGEMENT, ETC. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

    3. The facts very briefly are that the respondents are . A
different unaided private professional and educational colleges
and institutions in the State of Gujarat. The fees for admission
to the private unaided professional and educational colleges
and institutions in the State of Gujarat are regulated by the
Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or B
Institutions (Reg.ulat~on of Admission Fixation of Fees) Act,
2007 (for short 'the Act'), which came into effect on 30.04,2008.
Section 9 of the Act provides that the State Government shall,
for the purpose of determining the fees for admission of
students in the professional educational colleges or institutions,c
constitute a Fee Regulatory Committee with a retired judge of
the High Court nominated by the State Government as its
Chairperson. Section 10(1) of the Act provides that the Fee
Regulatory Committee shall determine the fee structure for
admission of students in the professional course and different
                                                                   0
fee structure may be determined for admission of students in
different professional courses and in different professional
educational colleges or institutions. Section 10(3) of the Act
states that the fee structure so determined by the Fee
Regulatory Committee shall be binding on the unaided
professional educational colleges or institutions for a period of E
three years and the fee so determined shall be applicable to a
student who is admitted to a professional educational college
or institution in that academic year and shall not be revised till
the completion of his professional course in that college or
institution. Section 11 (1) of the Act provides that the Fee F
Regulatory Committee shall determine and fix the fee or fees
to be charged by an unaided professional education college
or institution taking into consideration the factors mentioned
therein and one of the factors mentioned therein is the
expenditure on administration and maintenance. In accordance · G
with these provisions of the Act, ~he Fee Regulatory Committee
determined the fees for the students of the unaided professional
educational colleges and institution~ in the State of Gujarat for
the three academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-
2011 by different orders for different colleges and institutions H
    834     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2011] 11 S.C.R. .

A passed in the years 2009 and 2010. When the State
  Government accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
  Commission for revision of the pay and allowances of the
  employees with effect from 01.01.2006, different private
  engineering and technical colleges and institutions sought
B revision of the fees for students admitted in their colleges and
  institutions before the Fee Regulatory Committee on the ground
  that they have to pay their teaching and non-teaching staff the
  revised pay and allowances as per the recommendations of the
  Sixth Pay Commission, but the Fee Regulatory Committee
c declined to revise the fees.

          4. The respondents-colleges/institutions then moved the
    High Court in different writ petitions under Article 226 of the
    Constitution and by the impugned orders, the High Court held
    that the Self-Finance Institutions, like the institutions of the
D   respondents, are liable to pay salary and allowances to its
    teaching and non-teaching staff on the basis of the
    recommendations made by the Sixth Pay Commission and the
    revision of pay of Teachers in accordance with the
    recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission is one of the
E   criteria to be taken into consideration for determination of fee
    by the Fee Regulatory Committee. The High Court, relying on
    its orders passed in similar cases, set aside the orders of the
    Fee Regulatory Committee and remitted the matters to the Fee
    Regulatory Committee for fresh consideration and decision in
F   accordance with the observations made in the impugned
    orders. The High Court also held that if the respondents file
    undertaking that they will actually implement the
    recommendations made by the Sixth Pay Commission for their
    teaching and non-teaching staff, such additional burden on
G   account of implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth
    Pay Commission shall also be taken into consideration while
    deciding the fee structure afresh by the Fee Regulatory
    Committee. The High Court observed that till such orders are
    passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee, the respondents
H   shall continue to collect the same fees from the students as are
 FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE v. KALOL INSTITUTE                      835
      OF MANAGEMENT, ETC. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.)

collected presently under the orders of the Fee Regulatory                A
Committee. Aggrieved by the impugned orders of the High
Court, the Fee Regulatory Committee has filed these appeals.

     5. The only contention raised before us by Dr. Rajiv
Dhavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is that 8
the direction of this Court_inJsfamic Academy of Education and
Another v. State of Kamataka and Others ((2003) 6 SCC 697]
is that the fee fixed by the Committee shall be binding for a
period of three years and at the end of the period of three years,
the institution would be at liberty to apply for revision and C
accordingly it has been provided in Section 10(3) of the Act
that the fee structure determined by the Fee Regulatory
Committee shall be binding on the unaided professional
educational colleges or institutions for a period of three years
and the fee so determined shall be applicable to a student who Q
is admitted to a professional educational college or institutidn D
in that academic year and shall not be revised till the complef~n
of his professional course in that college or institution:'IAe
submitted that despite this statutory provision in Section"¥6(3)   ~ ·~
                                                                 , 001"
of the Act, the High Court has directed to revise the. fees· 1fbr 3
the academic years 2008-2009, 2009-201 o and 2ofo12o1"1. E
which had already been determined by the Fee'Re9ufatoty
Committee and which could not be revised for a gerlO'Ci''Of tHrYe
years.                                             ..,-,. nc·1f•
                                                  1i1 ~
                                                                   ·l11"n1·
                                                             .. ~i.J   v
                                                   arlt lo riO!Z!Vffl
     6. Mr. Dushyant A Dave, learned coun"Sel;appearing;for ·:.i F
the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that''.Uiia'itled
private engineering and professional coUegeslihave•ita:p-ay::itlle
revised pay and allowances as per the m--cruinmen'dati6f'lS1'0fithe
Sixth Pay Commission and, therefdr~ntHey, ~re1entitledHto ,
recover the additional cost on account~f>paymE:Hit·ol 1revised 8 G
pay and allowances from the std~~ts' b~:tenl:fa~Clng•.fe-es!ln
accordance with the judgments<--0f•·thlSl'Cdortblti\'c:TfM~A!1<Pai
Foundation and Others v.nS~ate bfl•Karmit§Rfifa'fld:.<!Jtners
[(2002) 8 sec 481 J. ts1amtct7tc'<Jdemf 'rtif,,;EfcJ.ucau~rie.snd
Another v. State of Kamatakac.antJ;OtHers:i(t&J)ra}'\and;::~:A. H H
    836       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A   lnamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
    ((2005) s sec 537].

        7. We nave considered the submissions of the learned
    counsel for the parties and we find that Section 10(3) of the Act
    reads as follows:
8
          "10(3). The fee structure so determined by the Fee
          Regulatory Committee shall be binding to the unaided
          professional educational colleges or institutions for a
          period of three years and the fee so determined shall be
C         applicable to a student who is admitted to a professional
          educational college or institution in that academic year and
          shall not be revised till the completion of his professional
          course in that college or institution."

o         8. Obviously, the Fee Regulatory Committee cannot
    overlook the aforesaid statutory provisions in Section 10(3) of
    the Act that the fee structure· so determined by the Fee
    Regulatory Committee shall be binding on _the unaided
    professional educational colleges or institutions for a period of
E   three years and the fee so determined shall be applicable to a
    student who is admitted to a professional educational college
    or institution in that academic year and shall not be revised till
    the completion of his professional course in that college or
    institution. The High Court, therefore, could not have directed
    revision of the fees already fixed by the Fee Regulatory
F   Committee for the academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and
    2010-2011 contrary to the aforesaid statutory provisions.
    Nonetheless, the unaided private professional and technical
    colleges or institutions were entitled to recover the extra cost
    on account of payment of revised pay and allowances to the
G   teaching and non-teaching staff through the fees collected from
    the students and this could be done only by enhancing the fees
    from the students for the academic years 2011-2012, 2012-
    2013 and 2013-2014 and for period of three years thereafter.
    Exactly how much of this cost would be recovered through the
H   fees collected from the students during the first period of the
  FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE v. KALOL INSTITUTE               837
       OF MANAGEMENT, ETC. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

  three years and how much of this cost would be recovered         A
  through fees collected from the students during the second
· period of three years can only be appropriately worked out by
  the Fee Regulatory Committee Reeping in mind both the interest
  of the colleges/institutions and the students.
                                                                   B
      9. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the
 High Court and direct thatthe increase in cost suffered by the
 respondents-colleges/institutions on account of the higher pay
 and allowances payable to the teaching and non-teachir:ig staff
 on the basis of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
 Commission will be taken into consideration ,by the Fee           C
 Regulatory Committee while determining the fees for the
 academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and
 subsequent period of three years in accordance with the
 provisions of the Act and the observations made herein. These
 appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.         D

 R.P.                                        Appeals allowed.