AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vivek Rusia, J
The petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the communication dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Admission and Fees Regulatory Committee (AFRC) and order dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure-P/8) whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said communication has been dismissed by the appellate authority constituted under Section 10 of the M.P. Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, 'Act of 2007').
Vide public notice dated 27.11.2025, National Medical Commission sanctioned/increased a PG seats for AY 2025-26. The petitioner could not get the time to get the fees fixed by AFRC. Vide impugned communication dated 28.11.2025, the Secretary of AFRC has fixed the fees Rs.9,80,000/-for MD/MS clinical course which is on a lower side according to the petitioner. For example, the aforesaid fees was fixed in the year 2018-19 for R.D Gardi Medical College Ujjain but same cannot be applied for current academic session. Being aggrevied by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under Section 10 of the Act of 2007 but the same has been dismissed solely on the ground that the Annexure-P/1 is not an order fixing the fees but a communication.
Shri Kochar learned counsel, further submits that the fees mentioned in the impugned communication will be reflected in the website for the purpose of counselling for admission. The said fees has been imposed on the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Icon Education Society Vs. State of Madhya Pradhesh and Others, Civil Appeal No.1760/2023 decided on 17.03.2023. The relevant portion is as under :
"16. Therefore, as matters stand, the Act of 2007 has been interpreted to mean that the AFRC, constituted thereunder, exercises only the power of ‘regulation’ in respect of the fees proposed by the institution, conditioned by the parameters in Section 9(1) of the Act of 2007. In effect, the liberty given to unaided institutions to propose the fees that they wish to charge, keeping in mind the factors set out in Section 9(1) of the Act of 2007, stands protected and it is only by way of regulating the fees so proposed that the AFRC would exercise the power of reviewing the proposed fees, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the educational institution concerned. The contrary stand taken by the AFRC, as is evident from its communications to the appellant society, therefore cannot be countenanced. It is not open to the AFRC to seek to unilaterally fix the fees to be charged by the appellant society for the professional courses offered through its educational institutions. At the same time, it is not open to the appellant society to claim complete immunity in undertaking this exercise and seek exemption from any interference by the AFRC. The appellant society must necessarily submit the fees proposed by it in respect of the professional courses offered through its institutions to the AFRC for the purpose of review and regulation, as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 2007 and the principles laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove. Making this position clear, the appeal is disposed of accordingly."
It is correct that the petitioner had no time to get the fees fixed for MD/MS course because the recognition was granted only on 27.11.2025 and on the next date this communication has been issued. The counselling is going to commence from 12.12.2025. Since this is the fees for the MD/MS courses which has been made applicable without notice to the petitioner, hence the same is liable to be set aside.
The order of appellate authority dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure-P/8) is also quashed.
The letter/communication dated 28.11.2025 is applicable for the petitioner only because for other colleges, the admission fees had already been fixed by the Committee. The aforesaid order has been passed or communicated without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit an application before the AFRS/committee for fixation of fees under Section 9 of the Act of 2007 and if such an application is filed, the same be decided within 10 days.
Since the counselling is going to be started on 12.12.2025, therefore, petitioner is permitted to participate in the counselling with a condition that fees for the course shall be subject to the fees fixed by the AFRC. This condition be also reflected in the website for the information to the candidates.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.