AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
The challenge in the present writ petition is to orders/letters dated 12.06.2003 (Annexure P-5), 10.06.2004 (Annexure P-6), 20.08.2004 (Annexure P-29) and 20.09.2004 (Annexure P-30) on the ground that State of Punjab had no jurisdiction to pass these impugned orders, since the petitioner-College is an unaided private institute and is under the jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that State of Punjab had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders/letters, since the petitioner-College is an unaided private institute and is under the jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. He further contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is already decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2003 SC 355. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that vide order dated 20.08.2004, a Committee was constituted in compliance of the order passed by this Court, for determination of fee for the session of 2003-2004 of BAMS students of the petitioner-College and Fee Fixation Committee vide its order dated 08.07.2004 fixed fee structure of Rs.50,000/-per annum. He further submits that, as per Annexure R-1 attached with the written statement, Principal of the petitioner-College gave an undertaking that the decision of Justice G.R.Majithia Committee would be binding upon the petitioner-College. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file with their able assistance.
A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation’s case (supra), shows that Hon’ble the Supreme Court on 14.08.2003 clarified and issued directions for setting up of Fee Committee under the Chairmanship of a retired High Court Judge to approve the fee structure sought to be imposed by the private unaided colleges. On 07.04.2003, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation’s case (supra), the Chandigarh Administration took a decision that it will not interfere in the matter of determination of fee structures of privately managed unaided colleges. As per directions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, vide order dated 14.08.2003, a Fee Committee presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.R.Majithia (Retired) decided that the fee should be charged at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per annum. A perusal of Annexures R-1 and R-2 placed on record by the respondents shows that the Principal of the petitioner-College gave an undertaking that the petitioner-College would abide by the decision taken by Justice G.R.Majithia Committee and it would be binding upon it. Admittedly, the petitioner-College was charging fee more than Rs.50,000/- per annum and in view of the decision of Justice G.R.Majithia Committee, a direction was issued by the Committee, vide order dated 29.09.2004, that fee not more than Rs.50,000/- per annum shall be charged from the students admitted in the petitioner-College during the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 24 prays that the amount deposited with the Registrar General of this Court in excess of Rs.50,000/- be refunded to respondents No.4 to 24.
Since, as per the decision of the Committee, the petitioner-College could not charge more than Rs.50,000/- per annum, therefore, the Registrar General is directed to refund the remaining amount to respondents No.4 to 24.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.