Holding

Annamalai University, being an institution imparting degrees conferred by a university established under a Tamil Nadu law, falls within the first limb of Section 2(b) of the 1992 Act and therefore its medical courses must have fees fixed by the Committee on Fixation of Fee under Section 4(2‑A).

Summary

The petitioners, students of the MBBS and BDS programmes at Rajah Muthiah Medical College (a constituent college of Annamalai University), challenged the university's fee structure, alleging it was excessive and not subject to the fee‑fixation mechanism under the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992. The High Court held that the Act did not apply because the university had not been notified by the State Government, and dismissed the writ. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the definition of "educational institution" in Section 2(b) of the 1992 Act, distinguishing its two limbs and holding that the first limb (institutions imparting degrees conferred by a university established under a State law) does not require any governmental notification. The Court further held that the Annamalai University, being established under a State law (including the 2013 Act), falls within this definition and therefore its medical courses are subject to Section 4(2‑A) of the 1992 Act, which mandates fee fixation by the Committee on Fixation of Fee. Consequently, the university cannot unilaterally determine fees for its medical programmes. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments, directed the university to submit its accounts to the Committee, and ordered the Committee to fix appropriate fees. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The applicability of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 to Annamalai University and its medical college.
Whether the definition of "educational institution" under Section 2(b) requires a State Government notification for institutions covered by the first limb.
The effect of the Annamalai University Act, 2013 on the university's status under the 1992 Act.
The mandatory nature of Section 4(2‑A) requiring fee fixation by the Committee on Fixation of Fee for medical and engineering courses.
The relevance of estoppel raised by the university based on the prospectus.

Legislation cited

Annamalai University Act, 2013s. 20(1)(m), s. 4(13)
Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992s. 2(b)(I), s. 2(b)(II), s. 4(2-A)

Subjects

Capitation feeFee fixationEducational institution definitionTamil Nadu Educational Institutions ActAnnamalai UniversityMedical college feesCommittee on Fixation of FeeEstoppelLegal fictionStatutory interpretation

Judgment

[2018] 12 S.C.R. 1027 1027

M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND OTHERS A
v.
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6654 of 2018)
JULY 13, 2018 B
[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection
of Capitation fee) Act, 1992 – ss.2(b)(I), 2(b)(II) and 4(2-A) –
Respondent No.2- medical college was established by the Annamalai
C
University – Fee charged by the University was too high as
compared to the other Government colleges – Writ petition filed by
the students – Highlighting the enormous difference between the
fees charged by the University on one hand and the scale fixed by
the Government as well as the Committee on Fixation of Fee on the
other, they pleaded that the matter for fixation of fee be referred to D
the Committee in terms of the 1992 Act – Writ petition was dismissed
by the High Court and it was held that 1992 Act was not applicable
as the concerned institution was not notified by the State
Government – University contended that it was entitled to fix fee on
its own without the intervention of any Committee – On appeal,
E
held: High Court was completely in error in observing that for the
application by the provisions of the 1992 Act an educational
institution must always be specified by the Government by
notification – The requirement of specification by the Government
is only in respect of “any other educational institution or class or
classes of educational institutions” u/s. 2(b)(II) of the Act – Whereas, F
s.2(b)(I) of the Act is an independent and stand alone provision
and does not require any specification by the Government – In instant
case, the University answered the description u/s.2(b)(I) of the
Act – Furthermore, s.4(2-A) of the Act, specifically apply to the
courses leading degrees in medicine and Engineering – Therefore,
G
the matter of fixation of fees was to be assessed by the “Committee
on Fixation of Fee” as contemplated under 1992 Act and the
University was not entitled to devise its own fee structure –
Annamalai University Act, 2013 – ss.4(13) and 20(i)(m) –
Education/Educational Institutions.
H
1027
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case the Single Judge of the High
Court considered the definition of Educational Institution as
appearing in Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Educational
Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation fee) Act, 1992
B and came to the conclusion that for the purposes of application of
the provisions of 1992 Act the concerned institution ought to
have been notified by the State Government and an appropriate
reference must be made to the Fee Fixation Committee. This
reasoning has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High
Court. It is, therefore crucial to consider the scope and ambit of
C the said provision. For facility the definition of “educational
institution” can be divided in two parts as under:
Section 2(b) “educational institution” means:
(I) any institution by whatever name called, whether managed
D by any person, private body, local authority, trust or
University, carrying on the activity of imparting education
leading to a degree or diploma (including a degree or
diploma in law, medicine or engineering) conferred by any
University established under any law made by the
Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu.
E and
(II) any other educational institution or class or classes of
educational institutions (other than any educational
institution established by the Central Government or
under any law made by Parliament) as the Government
F may, by notification, specify.[Para 12][1037-E-F; 1038-A]
2.1 According to (I) part of the definition, the activity must
lead to award of degree or diploma conferred by any University
established under any law made by the Legislature of the State.
There is element of certainty about this first part of definition
G and it is not left to the discretion of the Government in any manner.
If there is a course which leads to award of degree or diploma by
any University as specified, the concerned institution carrying
on the activity of imparting education would be an educational
institution within the meaning of said Section 2(b). [Para 12]
[1038-B-C]
H
M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND OTHERS v. ANNAMALAI 1029
UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

2.2 The definition has an inclusive provision which is A
specified in the (II) part and empowers the Government to specify
any other educational institution or class or classes of educational
institutions. Upon such specification by notification, such
institution or class or classes of institutions would also stand
covered by the definition. The (II) part also contains a bracketed
B
portion which is an exclusionary aspect of the definition. This
bracketed portion excludes any institution established by the
Central Government or under any law made by the Parliament
with respect to which the State Government cannot, even by
exercising power of specification include such institution.
[Para 12][1038-D-E] C
2.3 The aforesaid analysis thus conclusively establishes that
in so far as cases covered under (I) Part are concerned, no
specification by the Government is required or necessary. If the
concerned activity leads to award of degree or diploma by any
University established under any law made by the State D
Legislature, such institution shall be “educational institution”
within the meaning of provisions of Section 2(b). The specification
by notification is a pre-requisite only if the institution concerned
is otherwise not covered under (I) Part. The High Court was
completely in error in observing that for the application by the
provisions of 1992 Act an educational institution must always be E
specified by the Government by notification. The requirement of
specification of notification is only in respect of “any other
educational institution or class or classes of educational
institutions” and has not to be read with (I) part of definition,
which part of the definition is an independent and stand alone F
provision and does not require any specification by the
Government. [Para 13] [1038-E-H]
3. According to Section 3(1) of the Annamalai University
Act, 2013, on and from the commencement of said Act the
University established under the Annamalai University Act, 1928
G
shall be deemed to have been established and incorporated under
the provisions of 2013 Act. It is well settled that whenever a
Legislation deems, by way of legal fiction that a particular state
of affairs has to be assumed, that legal fiction has to be given full
effect. There is no escape from the situation that the University
H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A in the present case is the one established under any law made by
the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu. [Para 15] [1039-A-C]
4. The University by its very nature of activities would be
running numerous courses and to that extent provisions of 2013
Act are general in nature. The provisions of Section 4(2-A) of
B 1992 Act are specific and special and apply to courses leading to
degrees in Medicine and Engineering. Therefore, insofar as
professional courses leading to degrees in Medicine and
Engineering are concerned, the matter must be screened and
assessed by Committee on Fixation of Fee and the submission
that the University was entitled to fix fees on its own without the
C intervention of such Committee has to be rejected. [Para 18]
[1042-B-D]
5. The University was not entitled and competent to devise
its own fee structure in the present matter without having the
fee fixed by the Committee on Fixation of Fee as contemplated
D under 1992 Act. The matters shall therefore have to be referred
to said Committee and the University is directed to place the
entire material including its balance-sheet and accounts before
the Committee of Fixation of Fee. [Para 19][1042-F-G]
Islamic Academy of Education and Another v. State of
E Karnataka and Others (2003) 6 SCC 697 : [2003] 2
Suppl. SCR 474; Cochin University of Science and
Technology and Another v. Thomas P. John and Others
(2008) 8 SCC 82: [2008] 7 SCR 887 ; Gurupad
Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum
F and Others (1978) 3 SCC 383 : [1978] 3 SCR 761;
P.A. Inamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and
Others (2005) 6 SCC 537 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 603 –
referred to.
East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough
Council (1952) 2 All ER 587 – referred to.
G
Case Law Reference
[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 474 referred to Para 4
[2008] 7 SCR 887 referred to Para 9
[1978] 3 SCR 761 referred to Para 15
H [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 603 referred to Para 16
M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND OTHERS v. ANNAMALAI 1031
UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6654 A
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2016 of the High Court
at Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1637 of 2014
WITH B
Civil Appeal Nos. 6655-6656, 6657-6659, 6660 and 6661 of 2018.
Mrs. V. Mohana, Nikhil Nayyar, N. Sai Vinod, Dhananjay Baijal,
Ms. Smriti Shah, Divyanshu Rai, G. Sivabalamurugan, Ms. Vandana,
Vasantha Kumar, Mrs. Yamunah Nachiar, S.Ravishankar,
Gaurav Agrawal, S. Nandakumar, Ms. Tanu Priya Gupta, M. S. Saran C
Kumar, Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Sugam Kumar Jha, Gaurav Sharma,
Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Abhishek, K. V. Vijaya Kumar,
Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, K. V. Ramkumar, Naresh Kumar, B. Balaji, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. Special leave to appeal granted in
all matters.
These appeals are directed against the common judgment and
order dated 26.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras E
in Writ Appeal No.1637 of 2014 and other connected matters. Matter
arising from Writ Appeal No.1637 of 2014 which in turn arose from Writ
Petition No.20720 of 2014, namely M. Aamira Fathima and others v.
Annamalai University and others is taken to be the lead matter and the
facts leading to the filing of the said writ appeal are set out in detail F
hereunder.
2. Annamalai University (hereinafter referred to as “the
University”) was constituted under the Annamalai University Act, 1928
(Madras Act No.1 of 1929)1. This Act received the assents of Governor
and Governor General on 03.11.1928 and 11.12.1928 respectively and G
was first published in the Fort of St. George Gazette dated 01.01.1929.
The University established Respondent No.2 College, namely, Rajah
Muthiah Medical College in the year 1985.
1
Words “Tamil Nadu” were substituted for the word “Madras” by Tamil Nadu
Adaptation of Law and Order, 1969
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A 3. In 1992 the State legislature enacted the Tamil Nadu Educational
Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992
(hereinafter referred to as “1992 Act”). Section 2(b) defined Educational
Institution as under:-

“(b) “educational institution” means any institution by
B whatever name called, whether managed by any person, private
body, local authority, trust or University, carrying on the activity of
imparting education leading to a degree or diploma (including a
degree or diploma in law, medicine or engineering) conferred by
any University established under any law made by the Legislature
C of the State of Tamil Nadu and any other educational institution or
class or classes of educational institutions (other than any
educational institution established by the Central Government or
under any law made by Parliament) as the Government may, by
notification, specify;”

D Section 4 dealt with regulation of tuition fee or other fees or
deposits and was initially as under:-

“4. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, the Government may, by notification,
regulate the tuition fee or any other fee or deposit that may be
E received or collected by any educational institution or class or
classes of such educational institutions in respect of any or all
class or classes of students :

Provided that before issuing a notification under this sub-
section, the draft of which shall be published in the Tamil Nadu
F Government Gazette stating that any objection or suggestion which
may be received by the Government, within such period as may
be specified therein, shall be considered by them.

(2) No educational institution shall receive or collect any fee
or accept deposit in excess of the amount notified under
G
sub-section (1).

(3) Every educational institution shall issue an official receipt
for the fee or deposit received or collected by it.”

H
M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND OTHERS v. ANNAMALAI 1033
UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

4. After the judgment of this Court in Islamic Academy of A
Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others2, sub-section
(2-A) was added along with an Explanation in Section 4 of 1992 Act by
the State Legislature vide Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition
of Collection of Capitation Fee) Amendment Act, 2007. As a result of
the aforesaid insertion of sub-section (2-A) and Explanation, Section 4
B
of 1992 Act now reads as under:

“4. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, the Government may, by notification,
regulate the tuition fee or any other fee or deposit that may be
received or collected by any educational institution or class or C
classes of such educational institutions in respect of any or all
class or classes of students :

Provided that before issuing a notification under this sub-section,
the draft of which shall be published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette stating that any objection or suggestion which D
may be received by the Government, within such period as may
be specified therein, shall be considered by them.

(2) No educational institution shall receive or collect any fee or
accept deposit in excess of the amount notified under sub-section
(1). E

(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2), no educational institution imparting education
leading to a degree in medicine or engineering shall receive or
collect any fee in excess of the amount fixed by the ‘Committee
on fixation of fee’ constituted by the Government. F

Explanation – For the purpose of this sub-section ‘Committee on
fixation of fee’ means the Committee constituted in pursuance of
the direction of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of
Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others [(2002) 6
G
SCC 697].

(3) Every educational institution shall issue an official receipt for
the fee or deposit received or collected by it.”
2
(2003) 6 SCC 697
H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A 5. The University, though originally established as a private
University had always received contributions and funding from the State
Government. But the University never adhered to the statutory provisions
or the norms set by the State Government or the University Grants
Commission resulting in financial losses during the years 2009-10 and
2010-11. Under the orders passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu a
B
Special Local Fund Audit Team was appointed which found various
irregularities, whereafter by another order dated 14.12.2012 a High Level
Committee was constituted to analyze the audit report submitted by the
Special Local Fund Audit Team. The events which took place thereafter
were summed up by the Single Judge in the instant matters and the
C relevant observations in paragraphs 17 to 19 are quoted hereunder:
“17. After examining the report and the supporting material, this
High Level Committee concluded that the Founder had grossly
abused the privileges conferred upon him and that despite receiving
grants from the State Government to the tune of Rs.427.98 crores
D during the period from 1998-99 to 2012-13, the University had
landed up in serious financial crisis. Therefore, the Committee
recommended that the Government shall issue necessary directions
to the Senate and the Syndicate and also to appoint some person
to carry out those directions.
E 18. In pursuance of the aforesaid recommendations, the
Government issued a letter dated 7.3.2013 to the Vice Chancellor,
to convene the meeting of the Syndicate and Senate, to respond
to the report of the Special Local Fund Audit Team. A special
meeting of the Senate was held on 13.3.2013 and the meeting of
the Syndicate was held on 14.3.2013. The report of the Syndicate
F showed that by and large, the findings of the Special Local Fund
Audit Team were correct. Therefore, the Government issued a
directive on 26.3.2013 to convene a special meeting of the Senate
and the Syndicate. This was opposed by the Vice-Chancellor by
a reply dated 1.4.2013 on the ground that a second meeting will
G serve no purpose.
19. Therefore, the Government, by G.O. Rt. No.1401, Public
Department dated 4.4.2013, appointed an Administrator in exercise
of the powers conferred by Section 28(4) of the Annamalai
University Act, 1928. ……. “
H
M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND OTHERS v. ANNAMALAI 1035
UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

6. In 2013, the State Legislature enacted the Annamalai University A
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”) which came into force
w.e.f. 25.09.2013 and repealed the Annamalai University Act, 1928.
Sections 3(1), 4(13) and 20(1)(m) and (ab) of said 2013 Act were as
under:
“3(1) On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the B
Annamalai University established under the Annamalai University
Act, 1928 shall be deemed to have been established and
incorporated under this Act and is hereby declared to be the
University by the aforesaid name.
4. The University shall have the following objects and powers, C
namely:-
(1) to (12)…………………
(13) to fix fees and to demand and receive such fees as may
be prescribed;
D
“20. (1) The Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely:-
(a) to (l)……………….
(m) to prescribe the fees to be charged for admission to the
examinations, degrees, titles and diplomas of the University and
for all or any of the purposes specified in section 4: E
(n) to (z)(aa)…………….
(ab) to charge and collect such fees as may be prescribed;
(ac) to (an)……………”
7. 150 students who had taken admission in First MBBS Course F
in Respondent No.2 College for the Academic Session 2013-14 preferred
Writ Petition No.20720 of 2014 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras
questioning fees of more than Rs.5.54 lakhs per annum imposed by the
University. Similar challenge was raised by students studying in Dental
Courses which petitions were heard and dealt with by the High Court G
along with the main matter. It was urged by the petitioners that the fees
fixed in Government Colleges in the State were Rs.12,290/- for MBBS
Course and Rs.10,290/- for BDS Course; that the Committee on Fixation
of Fee constituted in terms of 1992 Act had fixed the tuition fees for

H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A MBBS Course at Rs.2.30 lakhs for two self-financing colleges, Rs.2.60
lakhs for one self-financing college and Rs.2.80 for other self-financing
colleges and that in so far as ESI Medical Colleges were concerned, it
had fixed the tuition fees at Rs.24,000/-. Highlighting the enormous
difference between the fees charged by the University on one hand and
the scale fixed by the Government as well as the Committee on Fixation
B
of Fee on the other, it was prayed that the matter for fixation of fee be
referred to the Committee in terms of 1992 Act.
8. While opposing the aforesaid submissions, it was contended on
behalf of the University that the fees stipulated by the University were
in terms of its statutes and the provisions of 2013 Act: that the object of
C 1992 Act was to curtail the menace of self-financing colleges imposing
high fees and that the Government Colleges and State Universities did
not come within the purview of 1992 Act: that presently the University
was running in deficit and if the fee structure was reduced it would put
the financial condition of the University in great jeopardy.
D 9. The Single Judge of the High Court by his common Judgment
and Order dated 02.12.2014 dismissed the challenge raised by the
petitioners. It was observed that the petitioners having been admitted to
MBBS and BDS Courses in pursuance of the prospectus for the year
2013-14, were bound by the terms and conditions contained therein and
E were therefore estopped from raising any challenge. Reliance in that
behalf was placed on the decision of this Court in Cochin University of
Science and Technology and another v. Thomas P. John and others3.
The Single Judge then proceeded to consider whether the provisions of
1992 Act would apply and get attracted in the present case. After
considering the definition of Educational Institution under Section 2(e)
F of 1992 Act, he observed that for the purposes of application of the
provisions of 1992 Act, the concerned Institution must have been notified
by the State Government under the said 1992 Act. It was further observed
that the University was initially established in pre-independence days
and merely because the earlier Act was repealed and replaced by 2013
G Act, the first limb of Section 2(b) would not apply without the State
Government referring the University to the Fee Fixation Committee.
10. The correctness of the decision of the Single Judge was
questioned by the students by filing Writ Appeal Nos.1637 and 1638 of
2014. Writ Petition Nos.6909, 6910, 12515, 27098 and 31848 of 2015
H 3
(2008) 8 SCC 82
M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND OTHERS v. ANNAMALAI 1037
UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

and 14562, 22911 and 26388 of 2016 preferred by some of the students A
were also heard along with said writ appeals by the Division Bench of
the High Court. By its common judgment and order dated 26.09.2016
the Division Bench rejected the challenge and dismissed the appeals.
The Division Bench affirmed the reasoning which weighed with the
Single Judge. It went on to observe that the University was empowered
B
under 2013 Act to fix, demand and receive such fees as were prescribed.
11. These appeals by special leave question the correctness of
the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate while leading the arguments
on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that it was completely erroneous
on part of the High Court to observe that the provisions of 1992 Act C
would not apply in the present case. He further submitted that on plain
reading of its provisions, 1992 Act must apply and get attracted in the
present case. These submissions were countered by Mr. S. Nandakumar,
learned Advocate who appeared for the University. In his submission,
the provisions of 1992 Act would not get attracted without an appropriate D
reference having been made by the State Government to the Fee Fixation
Committee.
12. In the present case the Single Judge considered the definition
of Educational Institution as appearing in Section 2(e) of 1992 Act and
came to the conclusion that for the purposes of application of the E
provisions of 1992 Act the concerned institution ought to have been
notified by the State Government and an appropriate reference must be
made to the Fee Fixation Committee. This reasoning has been affirmed
by the Division Bench. It is, therefore crucial to consider the scope and
ambit of the said provision. For facility the definition of “educational
institution” can be divided in two parts as under: F

Section 2(b) “educational institution” means:
(I) any institution by whatever name called, whether managed by
any person, private body, local authority, trust or University, carrying
on the activity of imparting education leading to a degree or diploma G
(including a degree or diploma in law, medicine or engineering)
conferred by any University established under any law made by
the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu.
and
H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A (II) any other educational institution or class or classes of educational
institutions (other than any educational institution established by
the Central Government or under any law made by Parliament)
as the Government may, by notification, specify.
According to (I) part, the activity must lead to award of degree or
B diploma conferred by any University established under any law made by
the Legislature of the State. There is element of certainty about this
first part of definition and it is not left to the discretion of the Government
in any manner. If there is a course which leads to award of degree or
diploma by any University as specified, the concerned institution carrying
on the activity of imparting education would be an educational institution
C within the meaning of said Section 2(b).
The definition has an inclusive provision which is specified in the
(II) part and empowers the Government to specify any other educational
institution or class or classes of educational institutions. Upon such
specification by notification, such institution or class or classes of
D institutions would also stand covered by the definition. The (II) part also
contains a bracketed portion which is an exclusionary aspect of the
definition. This bracketed portion excludes any institution established by
the Central Government or under any law made by the Parliament with
respect to which the State Government cannot, even by exercising power
E of specification include such institution.
13. The aforesaid analysis thus conclusively establishes that in so
far as cases covered under (I) Part are concerned, no specification by
the Government is required or necessary. If the concerned activity leads
to award of degree or diploma by any University established under any
F law made by the State Legislature, such institution shall be “educational
institution” within the meaning of provisions of Section 2(b). The
specification by notification is a pre-requisite only if the institution
concerned is otherwise not covered under (I) Part. The High Court was
completely in error in observing that for the application by the provisions
of 1992 Act an educational institution must always be specified by the
G Government by notification. In our view, the requirement of specification
of notification is only in respect of “any other educational institution or
class or classes of educational institutions” and has not to be read with
(I) part of definition, which part of the definition is an independent and
stand alone provision and does not require any specification by the
H Government.
M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND OTHERS v. ANNAMALAI 1039
UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

14. The next question which must be considered is whether A
University in the present case answers the description in (I) Part of
Section 3(b) of 1992 Act. According to Section 3(1) of 2013 Act, on and
from the commencement of said Act the University established under
the Annamalai University Act, 1928 shall be deemed to have been
established and incorporated under the provisions of 2013 Act. It is well
B
settled that whenever a Legislation deems, by way of legal fiction that a
particular state of affairs has to be assumed, that legal fiction has to be
given full effect. After quoting famous passage of Lord Asquith in East
End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council4, this Court in
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum
and others5 held that the legal fiction engrafted in Explanation I to Section C
6 of the Hindu Succession must be given due and full effect. There is
thus no escape from the situation that the University in the present case
is the one established under any law made by the Legislature of the
State of Tamil Nadu.
15. In Islamic (supra), this Court directed constitution of two D
Committees, namely, Fee Fixation Committee and Admissions
Committee. Paragraph 7 of the decision dealt with the concept of Fixation
of Fee by the Committee and said paragraph was as under:
“7. So far as the first question is concerned, in our view the majority
judgment is very clear. There can be no fixing of a rigid fee structure E
by the Government. Each institute must have the freedom to fix
its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate
funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for
the benefit of the students. They must also be able to generate
surplus which must be used for the betterment and growth of that
F
educational institution. In paragraph 56 of the judgment it has been
categorically laid down that the decision on the fees to be charged
must necessarily be left to the private educational institutions that
do not seek and which are not dependent upon any funds from
4
1952 AC 109, 132 =(1951) 2 All ER 587
“If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must also imagine
G
as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact
existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it; and if the statute says
that you must imagine a certain state of affairs, it cannot be interpreted to mean that
having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to
the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs.”
5
(1978) 3 SCC 383 H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A the Government. Each institute will be entitled to have its own fee
structure. The fee structure for each institute must be fixed keeping
in mind the infrastructure and facilities available, the investments
made, salaries paid to the teachers and staff, future plans for
expansion and/or betterment of the institution etc. Of course there
can be no profiteering and capitation fees cannot be charged. It
B
thus needs to be emphasized that as per the majority judgment
imparting of education is essentially charitable in nature. Thus the
surplus/profit that can be generated must be only for the benefit/
use of that educational institution. Profits/surplus cannot be diverted
for any other use or purpose and cannot be used for personal gain
C or for any other business or enterprise. As, at present, there are
statutes/regulations which govern the fixation of fees and as this
Court has not yet considered the validity of those statutes/
regulations, we direct that in order to give effect to the judgment
in T.M.A. Pai case the respective State Governments/concerned
authority shall set up, in each State, a committee headed by a
D
retired High Court Judge who shall be nominated by the Chief
Justice of that State. The other member, who shall be nominated
by the Judge, should be a Chartered Accountant of repute. A
representative of the Medical Council of India (in short “MCI”)
or the All India Council for Technical Education (in short “AICTE”),
E depending on the type of institution, shall also be a member. The
Secretary of the State Government in charge of Medical Education
or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall be a member
and Secretary of the Committee. The Committee should be free
to nominate/co-opt another independent person of repute, so that
the total number of members of the Committee shall not exceed
F
five. Each educational institute must place before this Committee,
well in advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure.
Along with the proposed fee structure all relevant documents and
books of accounts must also be produced before the Committee
for their scrutiny. The Committee shall then decide whether the
G fees proposed by that institute are justified and are not profiteering
or charging capitation fee. The Committee will be at liberty to
approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee which can
be charged by the institute. The fee fixed by the Committee shall
be binding for a period of three years, at the end of which period
H
M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND OTHERS v. ANNAMALAI 1041
UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

the institute would be at liberty to apply for revision. Once fees A
are fixed by the Committee, the institute cannot charge either
directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount
fixed as fees. If any other amount is charged, under any other
head or guise e.g. donations, the same would amount to charging
of capitation fee. The Governments/appropriate authorities should
B
consider framing appropriate regulations, if not already framed,
whereunder if it is found that an institution is charging capitation
fees or profiteering that institution can be appropriately penalised
and also face the prospect of losing its recognition/affiliation.”

16. The directions issued in Islamic (supra) including one regarding C
constitution of Fee Fixation Committee came up for consideration in
P. A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others6 and
the matter was settled in following terms:

“151. On Question 4, our conclusion, therefore, is that the
judgment in Islamic Academy insofar as it evolves the scheme of D
the two Committees, one each for admission and fee structure,
does not go beyond the law laid down in Pai Foundation and earlier
decisions of this Court, which have been approved in that case.
The challenge to setting up of the two Committees in accordance
with the decision in Islamic Academy therefore, fails……….....”
E
17. But the situation in the present matter stands on a slightly
different footing inasmuch as by inserting sub-section (2-A) along with
an explanation in Section 4 in 1992 Act, Fee Fixation Committee is a
statutory mechanism in terms of said provisions of 1992 Act. Said Section
4 shows that under sub-section (1) the Government is empowered to F
regulate the tuition fee or any other fees or deposits in the manner
prescribed therein. But in relation to imparting of education leading to a
degree in medicine or engineering, sub-section (2-A) has been given an
overriding effect by incorporating non-obstante provision. Sub-section
(2-A), unlike sub-section (1), does not require any notification by the
Government. If an institution carries on activity of imparting education G
leading to a degree or diploma as spoken of in sub-section (2-A) of said
Section 4, the fee structure has to be that which is fixed by the Committee.
The legislative intent is very clear and no educational institution which

6
(2005) 6 SCC 537
H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A comes within the scope of sub-section (2-A) can receive or collect any
fees in excess of the amount fixed by the “Committee on Fixation of
Fee”.
18. We now have to deal with the submission whether the University
by virtue of Section 4(13) and 20(1)(m) of 2013 Act could charge, collect
B and receive tuition fee without the intervention of “Committee on Fixation
of Fee” as contemplated by Section 4(2-A) of 1992 Act. The University
by its very nature of activities would be running numerous courses and
to that extent provisions of 2013 Act are general in nature. The provisions
of Section 4(2-A) of 1992 Act are specific and special and apply to
courses leading to degrees in Medicine and Engineering. Therefore,
C
insofar as professional courses leading to degrees in Medicine and
Engineering are concerned, the matter must be screened and assessed
by Committee on Fixation of Fee and the submission that the University
was entitled to fix fees on its own without the intervention of such
Committee has to be rejected. The other submission that the students
D were estopped from raising a challenge must also fail. If a particular
modality is prescribed by the Legislature any action in defiance or
ignorance of such modality cannot be protected or preserved on the plea
of estoppel. The reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Cochin
University of Science and Technology (supra) was also misplaced. In
that case students who had taken admission in NRI Quota, thereafter
E
contended that their fee structure be slashed to the same level as
applicable to non NRI students. The concept of estoppel was pressed
into service while rejecting said submission but that cannot be a ground
to deny the express protection available under a legislation.
19. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the judgments
F
and orders under appeal. We hold that the University was not entitled
and competent to devise its own fee structure in the present matter
without having the fee fixed by the Committee on Fixation of Fee as
contemplated under 1992 Act. The matters shall therefore have to be
referred to said Committee and the University is directed to place the
G entire material including its balance-sheet and accounts before the
Committee on Fixation of Fee within two weeks from the date of this
Judgment. The Committee shall thereafter bestow attention and fix
appropriate fee structure for the academic year 2013-14 onwards. It
goes without saying that if the fee structure fixed by the University is
H
M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND OTHERS v. ANNAMALAI 1043
UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

found by the Committee to be inappropriate, consequential benefit and A
advantage shall be given to each and every student. The Committee
shall fix the appropriate fee structure for the current academic Session
2018-19 as well. The entire exercise shall be completed by 31.08.2018.
20. These appeals stand allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.
B

Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H