Jawahar Annaldamla and others vs Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies and others

R.J. Kochar, J.—The petitioners are the students of three different courses in the Management Studies in the first respondent Institute. They joined the course for the year 1994-95. On selection they were required to pay certain amount of Tuition Fees and other amounts for various other purposes such as Identity Card, Enrolment, Library Deposit etc. as prescribed in the Prospectus. The fees continued to prevail during the preceding 3 to 4 years of the filing of the petition in the year 1994.

It is the grievance of the petitioners that all of a sudden, the 1st respondent put up a notice dated 21-7-1994 on Notice Board that all the 180 students will be required to pay Rs. 9,750/- by way of increase in fees and they were called upon to pay difference in fees by 21-8-1994. The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the said notice, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned notice which is based on a Circular dated 2-7-1994 is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1987"). The petitioners, therefore, have prayed for writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the said impugned Notice dated 21-7-1994 and to issue consequential orders of refund of the fees. It appears that at the stage of admission on 16-9-1994 the parties had filed Minutes of Order whereby the petitioners had paid the increased fee of Rs. 6,050/- in two equal installments and the said payment was subjected to the result of the present petition.

The learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on the provisions of the aforesaid Act to assail the legality and validity of the impugned Notice dated 21-7-1994. According to her, the respondent No. 1 Institute falls under the definition of Educational Institution and, therefore, it has to abide by section 4 of the Act which prescribes that the fees will be regulated by the State Government. It was also submitted that the 1st respondent is an aided institute. It was also submitted that the 1st respondent institute has no independent powers to take decision to increase the fees. It was also submitted that no expert committee was appointed before the decision to hike the tuition fees was taken.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Bombay University that the 1st respondent is not an independent institute but it is a department of the Bombay University and therefore, it was then governed by the Bombay University Act, 1974. It is further submitted that the institute is an autonomous and independent department of the University and it receives no aid from the State Government. It is also their case that it is totally self-fund-generative institute and has powers to determine the tuition fees and vary the same from time to time. It being the part and parcel and a department of the Bombay University it cannot be treated as a separate institution. As far as the powers to regulate and increase the tuition fees are concerned according to the learned Counsel, section 4(27) confers the powers.

4(27) Subject to such condition as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of this Act, the University shall have the following powers and perform the following duties, that is to say,

Fix, demand and receive or recover such fees and other charges as may be regulated by the ordinances.

In addition to the said source of powers section 24(37) is worded in the same manner whereby the Executive Council is conferred the powers to fix, demand and receive such fees and other charges as are regulated by the Ordinances. u/s 66 various committees are constituted for conducting the business of the University. There is a Finance Committee which considers the finance of the University. According to the learned Counsel, the Finance Committee had considered the issue of increase in the fees structure in its meeting held on 26-4-1994 and accordingly, the Executive Council u/s 23(1) of the Act had decided to increase the tuition fees and revise the fees structure. The impugned notice is an out come of the said resolution which is based on the report of the Finance Committee and the resolution of the Executive Council passed on 2-7-1994. It is also brought to my notice that the powers which are prescribed and regulated under Maharashtra Educational Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987, have been subjected to the provisions under the other Acts or Ordinances if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act. Section 13 reads as under :

Savings---Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all orders, circulars, resolutions, directions, rules, notifications, ordinances, statutes, schemes or appointments made or issued and all powers which were vested or exercisable by any person or authority in respect of the matters referred to in this Act, whether in accordance with any law for the time being enforce or otherwise, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force or continue to be so vested and be deemed to have been made or issued or vested under the provisions of this Act unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act.

According to me, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioners that the institute is governed by the Act of 1987. The institute is a part and parcel of the Bombay University and is functioning as its department though it is made self fund generative institute. According to me, it does not fall in the definition of the Act. The said Act does not apply to the Bombay University which is independently governed by the University of Bombay Act, which is subsequently succeeded by the Maharashtra Universities Act, which has replaced the Bombay Universities Act, 1974. The decision to hike the Tuition Fees as being taken by the University exercising its independent powers u/s 4(27) read with section 24(37) and section 66 of the Bombay University Act. It, therefore cannot be said that the University has no powers to increase the fees. According to me, the Act of 1987 is not applicable to the Bombay University which is governed by its own Statutes which has prescribed the powers and procedure for regulating the fees and the fees structure periodically. In the present case the University has acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Statute. No illegality could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. I, therefore, find no merits in the petition and the contentions that the Circular dated 2-7-1994 and the notice dated 21-7-1994 for hike in the fees and regulation of the fees structure are in any way illegal and contrary to provisions of law. The Act of 1987 on which the learned advocate for the petitioners had relied heavily, itself provides a clause in section 13 whereby all the acts and decisions of the Bombay University are stipulated in the Bombay University Act and, therefore, nothing illegal can be found. In these circumstances the hike in fees and revision of the fees structure as aforesaid is legal and valid. The petition therefore is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.