AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.K. Prasad, C.J.—Parents Association for Welfare of Students, aggrieved by a portion of the order dated 12.9.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 6100 (M/S) of 2007, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Similarly, the ERA''s Lucknow Medical College and Hospitals, aggrieved by the aforesaid order quashing the Government Order dated 24.8.2007 and the recommendation of Justice Sareen''s Committee dated 12.4.2007 determining the fee for the year 2003-04 at Rs. 2.96 lacs, has also preferred the appeal.
As both the appeals arise out of the common judgment, they were heard together.
Fee structure in the Medical Colleges not getting any aid from the Government has vexed this Court and the Supreme Court since long and before we proceed to examine the controversy in the case, it is expedient to trace out its history. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, and in the said case, it has been observed as follows:
An educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution. Different courses of study are usually taught by teachers who have to be recruited as per qualifications that may be prescribed. It is no secret that better working conditions will attract better teachers. More amenities will ensure that better students seek admission to that institution. One cannot lose sight of the fact that providing good amenities to the students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other infrastructure costs money. It has, therefore, to be left to the institution, if it chooses not to seek any aid from the Government, to determine the scale of fee that it can charge from the students. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that we live in a competitive world today, where professional education is in demand. We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private parties who do not seek any governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective student has various options open to him/her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. The decision on the fee to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational institution that does not seek or is not dependent upon any funds from the Government.
While considering the regulation of fees, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case further observed as follows:
Fees to be charged by unaided institutions cannot be regulated but no institution should charge capitation fee.
It seems that in the light of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, a meeting between the representatives of Private Medical Colleges and State Government, presided over by the Secretary to the Government of U.P. in the department of Medical Education was held on 13.6.2003. It is relevant here to state that several Private Medical Colleges had given its proposal but ERA''s Lucknow Medical College and Hospitals (hereinafter referred to as the Medical College) did not give any proposal. The Committee recommended fee of Rs. 1.55 lacs and while doing so, observed that any Private Medical College having objection to the fee structure may submit the same with profit and loss account and other relevant papers. In the light of the aforesaid decision, the State Government issued Government Order dated 15.7.2003 providing for Rs. 1.55 lacs as fee for M.B.B.S. students for the academic session 2003-2004. This order also stipulated that any Private College, in case, intends to charge higher fee may submit its proposal to be examined by a Standing Committee. As resolved by Government Order dated 2.8.2003, a Standing Committee was constituted. The Era Medical College did not challenge the aforesaid Government Order fixing the fee structure.
In the meanwhile, the matter of determination of fee structure came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, in which the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai (supra) came up for consideration, which would be evident from following passage from paragraph 1 of the judgment.
When these matters came up before a Bench of this Court, the parties to the writ petitions and special leave petitions attempted to interpret the majority decision in their own way as suited to them and therefore at their request all these matters were placed before a Bench of five Judges. It is under these circumstances that this Bench has been constituted so that doubts/anomalies, if any, could be clarified.
One of the questions formulated in the case of Islamic Academy of Education (supra) is as to "whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure" and while answering the aforesaid question, it came to the conclusion that uniform fee structure to be applicable to all the Private Colleges cannot be fixed and finding absence of any statute or regulation governing fixation of fee, it directed for setting up a Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge to approve the fee structure proposed by an institution or propose another fee structure. Relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard reads as follows:
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 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"), 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 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 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.
In the meanwhile, the order of the State Government dated 15.7.2003 determining the fee and order dated 2.8.2003 constituting the Standing Committee came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 (Royal Society of Educational Academy and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.) and on 28.8.2003, this Court passed the following orders:
Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the orders dated 15.7.2003 and 2.8.2003 issued by the State Government, Annexures 2 and 3, respectively to this writ petition shall remain stayed. The institutions shall be permitted to collect the fee which they were charging in the previous year. However, the fee collected by the institution shall abide by the decision of the committee and if any excess fee had been charged, the same shall be refunded to the students.
Students, therefore, took admission in the Era Medical College by paying fee of Rs. 2.98 lacs which the College charged in earlier year with an undertaking that the fee paid is provisional and subject to the final decision of the Committee.
In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and Islamic Academy of Education (supra), the State Government by order dated 20.2.2004 constituted a Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge and Hon''ble Mr. Justice P.K. Sareen was appointed as its Chairman. Justice Sareen''s Committee sought information from the Medical and Dental Colleges in the prescribed proforma. Era Medical College furnished the information sought for in the prescribed proforma containing the details of expenditure for the years 2000-01, 2001-02 and balance sheet for the session 2002-03 and 2003-04 and estimate of 2004-05.
Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 filed by Royal Society of Educational Academy, in which an interim order was passed on 28.8.2003 was dismissed by this Court by order dated 27.5.2005 with liberty to the petitioners of the said case to place the materials before the competent Committee for charging higher fees than fixed by order dated 15.7.2003.
While doing so, this Court observed as follows:
Besides this it is necessary to point out that this Court cannot appropriately decide the issue, as the matter has been left to be decided by the expert committee constituted for the purpose. The Court cannot assume the task and function of such committee and decide the matter its own atleast before when the matter in issue for the relevant period has not yet been placed by the petitioner before the Committee constituted for the purpose. This Court is also handicapped in deciding the actual amount of fees to be charged by the petitioners because of the absence of necessary materials and want of expertise in the matter. Thus in given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Government Order dated 15.7.2003 fixing the amount of fees chargeable by petitioner institution from the students of M.B.B.S and Dental Courses for academic session 2003-2004 with the liberty to the petitioners to place the materials before the competent Committee for charging higher fees than fixed by the aforesaid Government Order, does not call for any interference and in given facts and circumstances of the case, I could not find any justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sareen''s Committee, in the light of the orders of the High Court determined the fee structure of the Medical College for the session 2004-05 to be Rs. 3.42 lacs. However, it did not determine the fee structure for the year 2003-04. The State Government by letter dated 13.10.2005 wrote to the Director General Medical Education that in view of the order dated 27.5.2005 passed in the case of Royal Society of Educational Academy (supra) the colleges should charge annual fee as prescribed in the Government Order dated 15.7.2003, i.e., Rs. 1.55 lacs. The Medical College by its letter dated 26.12.2005 requested Justice Sareen''s Committee to determine the fee for the year 2003-04, inter alia, contending that requisite financial statements are available with the Committee. Justice Sareen''s Committee by its minutes dated 14.2.2006 refused to decide the fee of the Medical College besides ITS Centre for Dental Studies and Research, Ghaziabad (Durga Charitable Society). The ITS Centre filed Writ Petition No. 2117 (MS) of 2006 before this Court and by order dated 14.2.2006, the said decision of the Committee was quashed and the Committee was directed to decide the fee for the year 2003-04.
It is relevant here to state that Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and another, which runs Subharti Medical College and Subharti Dental College at Meerut also approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42148 of 2006: Subharati K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., raising dispute relating to the fee structure of the year 2003-04. This Court declined to interfere in the matter by order dated 21.8.2006, but observed that as its representation is pending before the Committee, the ends of justice would be best attained if the Committee constituted for fixation of fee for Private Medical and Dental Colleges be directed to pass appropriate orders. Relevant portion of the order of this Court in the aforesaid case reads as follows:
From a close scrutiny of the decision cited above, it would transpire that in the said case also, liberty was granted to the petitioners of that case to place the grievance for redressal before the competent committee.
Regard being had to the fact that the representation preferred before the Committee by the petitioners is still pending, the ends of justice would be best attained if the newly impleaded Committee constituted for fixation of fee in Private Medical and Dental Colleges of U.P. is directed to pass appropriate orders on the said representation preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It needs hardly be said that the Committee respondent No. 5 shall reckon into consideration all relevant materials on record or the materials as may be brought on record afresh by the petitioners and the final order that may be passed shall be informed with reasons. Fresh materials if any may be brought on record within 10 days from today before the Committee.
Although the Medical College did not assail the decision of Justice Sareen''s Committee refusing to decide the fee for the year 2003-04, it submitted representation to the Principal Secretary to the Government of U.P. and the Member of Justice Sareen Committee to determine the fee for the year 2003-04 at Rs. 2.98 lacs. By letter dated 24.7.2006, the Medical College further wrote to the Secretary to the Government of U.P. in the Department of Medical Education to decide the fee for the year 2003-04 at Rs. 2.98 lacs, inter alia, pointing out that the fee for the year 2004-05 has been fixed at Rs. 3.42 lacs by Justice Sareen Committee. The State Government by its letter dated 17.8.2006 requested Justice Sareen Committee to submit the report of the Chartered Accountant, which it has submitted on examination of the documents and the accounts furnished by the Medical College. Ultimately, the State Government by order dated 7.9.2006, fixed the fee of Medical College for the year 2003-04 at Rs. 2.96 lacs. Parents Association of Students initiated a contempt proceeding, bearing Criminal Misc. Case No. 2052 (C) of 2006 before this Court, in which the Secretary of the Medical College was impleaded as opposite party No. 2. This Court by order dated 13.9.2006 directed for issuance of notice to the Secretary to the Government of U.P. in the Department of Medical Education and the Secretary of the Medical College. While doing so, this Court stayed the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 7.9.2006 fixing the fee of the Medical College at Rs. 2.96 lacs. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 13.9.2006 reads as follows:
After considering the argument on behalf of the both sides, this Court is of the view that issuing of the Government Order dated 7.09.2006 prima facie indicates the commission of contempt of Court.
Let notice be issued to the opposite party No. 1 and 2.
They shall file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter.
List immediately thereafter.
In the meanwhile, the operation of the disputed Government Order dated 7.09.2006 shall remain stayed and any consequential action taken by way of notices to students shall also remain stayed.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Secretary of the Medical College, preferred an appeal, being Special Appeal No. 748 of 2006 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.10.2006 admitted the Special Appeal and stayed the operation of order dated 13.9.2006 passed in the aforesaid Contempt Petition. It is apt to reproduce the said order, which is as follows:
Admit.
Issue notice.
Ten days time is allowed for filing objection to the affidavit in support of the appeal. Till further orders of the Court the order dated 13.9.2006 so far as it relate to the appellant shall remain stayed. It would be for the parties Counsel to inform this order to the Hon''ble Contempt Judge.
Parents Association for Welfare of Students, aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2006, preferred a SLP No. 1722 of 2007 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated 16.12.2008 set aside the order dated 13.9.2006 as also the order dated 17.10.2006 passed in the aforesaid Contempt Petition and the Special Appeal.
The State Government in the light of the order of this Court dated 21.8.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42148 of 2006 (Subharati K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) requested Justice Sareen Committee to take a decision in respect of the said College as also the Medical College for the fee structure for the year 2003-04 by order dated 13.11.2006. Aforesaid letter dated 13.11.2006 was also endorsed to the Medical College. In the light of the aforesaid communication, the Medical College again approached Justice Sareen Committee to determine its fee for the year 2003-04. Justice Sareen Committee considered the request of the Medical College and on analysis of the materials available on record found justification for charging the fee at Rs. 2.96 lacs for the year 2003-04. In the light of the aforesaid opinion of Justice Sareen Committee, the State Government by order dated 24.8.2007 determined the fee of the Medical College at Rs. 2.96 lacs per student for the year 2003-04.
It is this order of the State Government dated 24.8.2007, which was assailed by the Parents Association for Welfare of Students in Writ Petition No. 6100 (MS) of 2007 (Parents Association for Welfare of Students v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 12.9.208, allowed the writ petition in the following words:
Thus in ultimate analysis of the controversy raised in these petitions, as also in view of what has been discussed hereinabove the Government Order dated 24.10.2007 (sic 24.8.2007) (Annexure No. 1) passed by opposite party No. 1 and the recommendations of opposite party No. 4 dated 12.04.2007 (Annexure No. 14) in writ petition No. 6100 (M/S) of 2007 and recommendations dated 19.12.2006 (Annexure No. 1) and notice dated 05.10.2007 (Annexure No. 2) issued pursuant thereto in writ petition No. 5961 (M/S) of 2007 cannot be allowed to be sustained and thus are liable to be struck down. The writ petitions in the circumstances deserve to be allowed.
Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The Government Order dated 24.10.2007 (sic 24.8.2007) (Annexure No. 1) as well as recommendations of Sareen Committee (Annexure No. 14) in writ petition No. 6100 (M/S) of 2007 and recommendation dated 19.12.2006 (Annexure No. 1) and notice dated 05.10..2007 (Annexure No. 2) in writ petition No. 5961 (M/S) of 2007 are hereby quashed.
While doing so, this Court further observed as follows:
Since Sareen Committee now stands superseded by a permanent enactment by the State Legislature, namely, U.P. Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act 2006 (U.P. Act 24 of 2006) therefore, the claim of the institutions for academic session 2003-04, if any, shall be considered and decided afresh in accordance with law by the committee constituted under the Act.
Parents Association for Welfare of Students, aggrieved by the aforesaid observations, in which claim of the Medical College was directed to be decided afresh, has preferred an appeal, which has been registered as Special Appeal No. 664 of 2008. The Medical College, aggrieved by the order quashing the Government Order dated 24.8.2007 as also the recommendations of Justice Sareen Committee dated 12.4.2007, has also preferred an appeal, which has been registered as Special Appeal No. 589 of 2008.
Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of finally by this common judgment.
Mr. Sandeep Dixit, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-ERA''s Lucknow Medical College and Hospital, submits that since the State Government had passed the order dated 24.8.2007 fixing the fee of the Medical College in view of the determination of fee made by Justice Sareen Committee on 12.4.2007, the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the same.
Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant-Parents Association for Welfare of Students, however, contends that Justice Sareen Committee had no jurisdiction to determine the fee structure for the year 2003-04, as the said Committee was itself constituted by order dated 22.2.2004. He points out that in view of the direction of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education (supra), the fee structure of an academic institution was to be placed before the Committee well in advance. Justice Sareen Committee having been constituted on 22.2.2004 after commencement of academic session 2003-04, it lacks jurisdiction to determine the fee structure. He points out that Justice Sareen Committee having no authority, the Government Order dated 15.7.2003 fixing the fee for the academic session, in question, shall govern the field. It has also been emphasized that the challenge to the aforesaid Government Order had failed in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003: Royal Society of Educational Academy and Rama Dental Hospital and Research Centre.
In answer thereto, Mr. Dixit, points out that this Court, while declining to interfere with the Government Order dated 15.7.2003 fixing the fee chargeable for the year 2003-04, gave liberty to the Medical Colleges to place the materials before the competent Committee. It has also been pointed out that the Medical College did not challenge the order dated 15.7.2003 fixing the fee and the order dated 2.8.2003 constituting a Standing Committee and also did not file any objection as envisaged in the order dated 15.7.2003, as those orders were stayed by this Court by order dated 28.8.2003 in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 (Royal Society of Educational Academy). It has also been pointed out that when Justice Sareen Committee was constituted, the Medical College approached the said Committee for determining its fee for the year 2003-04, but it declined to do the same by its minutes dated 14.2.2006 along with other Medical Colleges, namely, Royal Society of Educational Academy, ITS Centre for Dental Studies and Research (Durga Charitable Society), Subharati Medical College and Subharati Dental College.
It has been pointed out that the aforesaid minutes of Justice Sareen Committee dated 14.2.2006 having been quashed by this Court by order dated 20.11.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 2117 (MS) of 2006, nothing prevented Justice Sareen Committee to consider the fee structure of the Medical College for the year 2003-04.
Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Kalia. The order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2117 (M/S) of 2006 (Durga Charitable Society and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) has observed as follows:
The jurisdiction, therefore, did vest in respondent No. 3 committee which it failed to exercise and therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable. In view of the reasons given herein above it would be appropriate that the committee is directed to decided the matter afresh in order to further avoid any multiplicity and complexity of the problem. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 14.2.2006 is quashed with a direction to the respondent No. 3 committee to forthwith proceed to decide the claim of the applicant in respect of the sessions 2003-04 as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Further, this Court in its order dated 21.8.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 42148 of 206, which has been quoted in the preceding paragraph of the judgment had left the matter to be decided by Justice Sareen Committee. True it is that the Medical College did not challenge the minutes of Justice Sareen Committee declining to determine the fee structure, nonetheless in view of the aforesaid orders, nothing prevented it to approach Justice Sareen Committee for determination of fee. It is worth mentioning that the order of the State Government dated 15.7.2003 fixing the fee for the sessions 2003-04 gave liberty to such Institution, who intended to charge higher fee, to lay its claim before the Standing Committee, but the said order itself was stayed by this Court. On the face of it, it is difficult to hold that Justice Sareen Committee had no jurisdiction to determine the fee for the year 2003-04. In our opinion, if it is held that it has no jurisdiction, the Medical College shall be rendered remedyless.
Mr. Dixit, representing the Medical College, submits that it shall be governed by the Government Order dated 24.8.2007 determining the fee for the year 2003-04 at Rs. 2.96 lacs in view of the recommendation of Justice Sareen Committee dated 12.4.2007 and the learned Single Judge erred in quashing the aforesaid order and the recommendation of Justice Sareen Committee.
Mr. Kalia, however, points out that the order of the State Government having not been challenged by the Medical College, it shall bind it. It has also been pointed out that as the challenge to the aforesaid Government Order dated 15.7.2003 had already failed in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 (Royal Society of Educational Academy), the Medical College shall be governed by that.
In my opinion, the aforesaid order of this Court has not finally adjudicated the fee structure and the liberty to raise issue before the Committee was left open, which would be evident from the following passage of the judgment, which reads as follows:
Besides this it is necessary to point out that this Court cannot appropriately decide the issue, as the matter has been left to be decided by the expert committee constituted for the purpose. The Court cannot assume the task and function of such committee and decide the matter its own atleast before when the matter in issue for the relevant period has not yet been placed by the petitioners before the Committee constituted for the purpose. This Court is also handicapped in deciding the actual amount of fees to be charged by the petitioners because of the absence of necessary materials and want of expertise in the matter. Thus in given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Government Order dated 15.7.2003 fixing the amount of fees chargeable by petitioner institution from the students of M.B.B.S and Dental Courses for academic session 2003-2004 with the liberty to the petitioners to place the materials before the competent Committee for charging higher fees than fixed by the aforesaid Government Order, does not call for any interference and in given facts and circumstances of the case, I could not find any justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is worth mentioning that when Justice Sareen Committee declined to decide the fee for the session 2003-04 by minutes dated 14.2.2006, same was quashed by this Court and a mandamus was issued to the Government ''to forthwith proceed to consider the fee of 2003-04''.
In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Justice Sareen Committee did not err in considering the fee structure for the year 2003-04 and the State Government in passing the order fixing the fee of Rs. 2.96 lacs for the year 2003-04.
Mr. Dixit appearing on behalf of the Medical College, submits that Justice Sareen Committee had made recommendation on consideration of relevant materials and the State Government rightly fixed the fee by order dated 24.8.2007, as recommended by Justice Sareen Committee. Mr. Kalia, however, submits that the relevant factors as enumerated in the Islamic Academy of Education (supra) were not considered and as such its recommendation has been vitiated on this ground alone.
Submission of Mr. Kalia does not commend me. It is not expected of this Court exercising the power of judicial review to act as a Court of Appeal against the recommendation of Justice Sareen Committee. Justice Sareen Committee is a High Power Committee consisting of the senior Officers of the State Government as also the Chartered Accountants, and on consideration of materials placed before it, it determined the fee for the year 2003-04. The fee of the Medical College for the year 2004-05 has been determined at Rs. 3.42 lacs.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that Justice Sareen Committee''s recommendation is not fit to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the power of judicial review.
As I have held that the order of the State Government determining the fee structure and Justice Sareen Committee report are legal and valid, the liberty given by the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the matter by another Committee is of no consequence.
Accordingly, the Appeal preferred by the Medical College is allowed, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Appeal preferred by the Parents Association for Welfare of Students, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Before parting it will be appropriate to take note of the difficulties which the students of Medical college will face, (as mentioned in C.M. An No. 51408 of 2009) in meeting the eligibility criteria for appearing in U.P. Post Graduate Medical Entrance Exam (UPPGMEE) wherein the candidates must have completed compulsory rotatory internship by 1st May of year of admission and since the results of many students have not been declared because of the interim order passed by the Court as they were not ready to deposit the fee determined by Justice Sareen Committee, a direction is issued to the appropriate authority to condone the attendance in completing compulsory rotatory internship as per rules or in the alternative the shortage of attendance may be made good by permitting such students to discharge their duties as intern for some extra hours over and above eight hours till the shortage of their attendance is made good.
This direction has been issued only keeping in mind the students'' interest of Medical college who had completed their course of MBBS and are eligible to appear in entrance examination of (UPPGMEE) subject to other conditions of eligibility being fulfilled by them only because some of them who waited for the result of the special appeals, cannot be penalized for coming to court under bonafide advice given by the counsel, subject to the condition that they deposit the fee as aforesaid, within a maximum period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.