AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In Yeachu Sunil v. The State of Telangana, represented by its Chief Secretary Order dated 22.11.2016 in W.P. No.39922 of 2016 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.
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 Convener, LAWCET and also intimate to all the Law Colleges.”
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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. No
Name of the student
Class
Fee to be paid for entire three year course
Actual fee paid
Difference of amount
due
1.
Lingaiah Miryala
LL.B., 3YDC
67,500/- (Rs.22,500 x 3)
34,500/-
33,000/-
2.
G. Giridhar
-do-
-do-
67,500/-
--
3.
V. Sampathkumar
-do-
-do-
36,300/-
31,200/-
4.
B.Subba Reddy
-do-
-do-
-do-
-do-
5.
Bingi Dasharatha
-do-
-do-
-do-
-do-
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.
The aforesaid issue is no more res integra. In S.Muthukamatchi v. The Director of Technical Education, Anna University Order dated 18.12.2012 in W.P.(MD) No.14394 of 2012, 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 Education 2019 SCC OnLine Mad. 9385, and this Court in Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja v. The State of Telangana Order dated 24.06.2022 in W.P.No.2930 of 2022 and D.Vaishnavi v. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary Health Medical and Family welfare, Hyderabad Order dated 24.01.2020 in W.P. No.21137 of 2019 and also the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Andhra Pradesh Private Unaided Schools Management Association v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Order dated 27.10.2021 in W.P. No.9606 of 2021.
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.
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.
The present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the petitioner college to return the certificates of respondent 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.