Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Vs Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering Colleges Managements Association

Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission,, Rep. by its Chairman, 3^*^ Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block, C-Block, NH-15, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶12

...Appellant/Respondent No.2 in W.P. AND

¶13

Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering Colleges Managements Association, Having its registered office at Rep by its Gen Secretary Sridhar Maddisetty

¶14

S/o. M. Srinivasulu Aged About 51 Years R/o. 1®* floor Vishal Residency NTR Road Padmaja Nagar Tadigadapa Vijayawada 521134.

¶15

Sridhar Maddisetty, S/o. M. Srinivasulu Aged About 51 Years Occ Business General Secretary Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering colleges Managements Association R/o 1"* floor Vishal Residency^NTR Road Padmaja Nagar Tadigadapa Vijayawada 521134.

¶16

...Respondents/Petitioners in W.P.

¶17

The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Tullur, Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶18

Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Kakinada, Rep by its the Registrar Kakinada A P 533003.

¶19

Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Anantapur, Rep by its the Registrar Anantapuramu AP515002.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

...Respondents/Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 in WP

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 05.12.2023 in W.P.No.32909 of 2022, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VEERA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL, APPEARING VICE SRI C. SUDESH ANAND

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI N. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL APPARING VICE SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 :GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI I. MADHU BABU, SC FOR JNTU KAKINADA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI PENJURI VENUGOPAL (SC FOR JNTUA)

¶28

APHC010008862024

¶29

WRIT APPEAL NO: 118 OF 2024

¶30

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred the against judgment in W.P.No.20878 of 2023 dated 05.12.2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶31

Between:

¶32

Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission, Regulatory and Monitoring Commission, Rep. by its Chairman, Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block, C-Block, NH-15, Tadepalli,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶33

...Appeliant/Respondent No.2 in W.P. AND

¶34

Swarnandhra College of Engineering And Technology, Rep by its Vice Chairman Sri Kirti Kumar Satrasala Seetharampuram Narasapur^Andhra Pradesh.

¶35

A. M. Reddy Memorial College of Engineering and Technology, Rep by its Correspondent Smt Atiuri Santhi Petiurivaripalem Narasaraopet^Guntur District Andhra Pradesh 522601

¶36

Sri Sunflower College of Engineering and Technology, Rep by its Correspondent Sri Mahali DVSR Punnam Raju Lankapalli Gantasala Mandal Krishna District Andhra Pradesh

¶37

Nova College of Engineering and Technology, Rep by its Correspondent Sri M. Krishna Rao Jupudi Village Ibrahimpatnam Krishna District Andhra

¶38

Pradesh

¶39

Nova College of Engineering and Technology, Rep by its Correspondent Sri M. Krishna Rao Jangareddygudem Eluru District Andhra Pradesh

¶40

Golden Vally Integrated Campus, Rep by its Correspondent Sri N Venkataramana Reddy Kurabalakota Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh

¶41

...Respondents/ Petitioners in W.P.

¶42

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Tullur, Velagapudi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶43

Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Kakinada, Rep by its the Registrar kakinada A P 533003

¶44

Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Anantapur, Rep by its the Registrar, Anantapuramu APS 15002

¶45

...Respondents/Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 in W.P.

¶46

f ^ lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 05.12.2023 in W.P.No.20878 of 2023, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VEERA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL, APPEARING VICE SRI C. SUDESH ANAND

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : SRI N. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL APPARING VICE SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent No.7^{:GPFORHIGHEREDUCATION}

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI I. MADHU BABU, SC FOR JNTU KAKINADA

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent No.9 : SRI PENJURI VENUGOPAL (SC FOR JNTUA)

¶52

APHC010008912024

¶53

WRIT APPEAL NO: 183 OF 2024

¶54

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the judgment in W.P.No.32967 of 2022 dated 05.12.2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶55

Between:

¶56

Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory And Monitoring Commission, Rep. by its Chairman, 3 rd Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block, C- Block, NH-15, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶57

...Appellant/Respondent No.2 in W.P. AND

¶58

Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering Colleges Managements^Association, Having its registered office at Rep by its Gen Secretary Sridhar Maddisetty

¶59

w

¶60

S/o. M. Srinivasulu Aged About 51 Years, R/o. 1®^ floor Vishal Residency

¶61

^ NTR Road Padmaja Nagar Tadigadapa Vijayawada 521134. 2. Sridhar Maddisetty, S/o. M. Srinivasulu Aged About 51 Years Occ: Business, General Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering colleges Managements Association R/o. 1®* floor Vishal Residency NTR Road, Padmaja Nagar Tadigadapa Vijayawada 521134.

¶62

...Respondents/Petitioners in W.P.

¶63

The State of AP, Rep. by its Special principal Secretary of Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Tullur, Velagapudi,^Amaravati.

¶64

Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University, Kakinada Rep by its the Registrar kakinada A P 533003

¶65

Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University, Anantapur Rep by its the Registrar, Anantapuramu AP515002.

¶66

...Respondents/Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 in W.P.

¶67

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶68

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 05.12.2023 in W.P.No.32967 of 2022, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶69

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VEERA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL, APPEARING VICE SRI C. SUDESH ANAND

¶70

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI N. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL APPARING VICE SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶71

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 :GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶72

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI I. MADHU BABU, SC FOR JNTU KAKINADA

¶73

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI PENJURI VENUGOPAL (SC FOR JNTUA)

¶74

APHC010008892024

¶75

WRIT APPEAL NO: 187 OF 2024

¶76

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the judgment in W.P.No.35109 of 2022 dated 05.12.2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶77

Between:

¶78

Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission, 3 rd Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block, C-Block, NH-15, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶79

...Appellant/Respondent No.2 in W.P. AND

¶80

Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering Colleges Managements^Association Having its registered office at Rep by its Gen Secretary Sridhar Maddisetty S/o. M. Srinivasulu Aged About 51 Years, R/o. 1®* floor Vishal Residency NTR Road Padmaja Nagar Tadigadapa Vijayawada 521134.

¶81

Sridhar Maddisetty, S/o. M. Srinivasulu, Aged About 51 Years, Occ: Business General Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering colleges Managements Association R/o. 1®* floor Vishal Residency^NTR Road Padmaja Nagar Tadigadapa Vijayawada 521134.

¶82

...Respondents/Petitioners in W.P

¶83

The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶84

...Respondent/Respondent No.1 in W.P.

¶85

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶86

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 05.12.2023 in W.P.No.35109 of 2022, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶87

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VEERA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL, APPEARING VICE SRI C. SUDESH ANAND

¶88

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI N. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL APPARING VICE SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶89

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 :GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION APHC010008852024

¶90

AC

¶91

WRIT APPEAL NO: 191 OF 2024

¶92

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the judgment in W.P.No.22945 of 2023 dated 05.12.2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶93

Between:

¶94

Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring^Commission Rep. by its Chairman, 3^^^ Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave,^{NRIBlock,C-Block} NH-15, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶95

...Appellant/Respondent No.2 in W.P. AND

¶96

Audisankara College of Engineering And Technology, Represented by its Correspondent, Penchalaiah, NH5 By Pass Road, S.P.S.R^{NelloreDistrict,} Gudur 524 101, Andhra Pradesh.

¶97

...Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.

¶98

1. The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Tullur, Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶99

1. Jawharla Nehru Technological University, Rep by its Register Ananthapuram District Andhra Pradesh.

¶100

Jawharla Nehru Technological University, Rep by its Vice Chancellor Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District Andhra Pradesh.

¶101

The Convenor AND DTE, APEAPCET 2023 Admissions F No 301 Garudadri K K Towers Lakshmi Narasimha Colony Mangalagiri^Guntur 522503.

¶102

...Respondents/Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 in W.P.

¶103

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶104

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 05.12.2023 in W.P.No.22945 of 2023, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶105

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VEERA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL, APPEARING VICE SRI C. SUDESH ANAND

¶106

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI N. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL APPARING VICE SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶107

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 :GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶108

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : SRI PENJURI^VENUGOPAL (SC FOR JNTUA) Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI K. RAGHU VEER

¶109

APHC010082702024

¶110

WRIT APPEAL NO: 197 OF 2024

¶111

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred^againstthe Judgment dt. 5.12.2023 in WP No.32909 of 2022 on the^fileof the High Court.

¶112

Between:

¶113

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief^{Secretary(In-Charge),} Higher Education Department, Secretariat,Tullur, Velagapudi,^{GunturDistrict.} ...Appellant/Respondent No.1 In W.P. AND

¶114

T

¶115

Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering Colleges, Managements^Association Having its registered office at Rep by its Gen Secretary Sridhar Maddisetty, S/o. M. Srinivasulu, Aged About 51 Years, R/o. 1®* floor, Vishal Residency, NTR Road, Padmaja Nagar, Tadigadapa, Vijayawada 521134.

¶116

Sridhar Maddisetty, S/o. M. Srinivasulu, Aged About 51 Years, Occ: Business, General Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering colleges Managements Association, R/o. 1®* floor Vishal Residency, NTR Road, Padmaja Nagar, Tadigadapa, Vijayawada 521134.

¶117

...Respondents/Petitioners in W.P.

¶118

Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission, Rep. by its Chairman, 3"'^ Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block, C- Block, NH-15, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶119

Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University, Kakinada Rep by its the Registrar kakinada A P 533003.

¶120

Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Anantapur, Rep by its the Registrar, Ananthapur, AP, 515002. ...Respondents/Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 In W.P.

¶121

PACE Institute of Technology & Sciences, Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent Sri Sridar Maddisetty, Ongole, Prakasam Districts, Andhra Pradesh.

¶122

Swarnandhra College of Engineering & Technology, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Sri Kirti Kuamr Satrasala, Seetharampuram, Narsapur, Andhra Pradesh.

¶123

Vignan’s Institute of Information and Technology, Rep. by its Principal Sr. Dr. Sudhakar Jyothula, Beside Vsez, Duvvada, Veps (Post), Gajuwaka, Visakahapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh^-530049.

¶124

Vignan’s Lara Institute of Technology and Science, Rep. by its Principal Sri Dr. K. Phaneendra Kumar, Vadlamudi, Chebrolu Mandal,^Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh -522213.

¶125

Vignans Institute of Engineering for Women, Kapur Jaggarajupeta Vadlapudi Post, Gajuwada, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam^District. Andhra Pradesh.

¶126

.... Implead Petitioners

¶127

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶128

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt. 5.12.2023 in WP No.32909 of 2022.

¶129

Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶130

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI N. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL APPARING VICE SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶131

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI P. VEERA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL, APPEARINGVICE SRI C. SUDESH ANAND

¶132

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : SRI PENJURI^VENUGOPAL (SC FORJNTU) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 10 : -

¶133

APHC010294802024

¶134

(Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT PETITION NO: 14967 OF 2024

¶135

Between:

¶136

Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society, Plot No. 102, High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 500 070 Represented by its Hon. Chairman and Correspondent Dr. Rev. K.V.K. Rao.

¶137

St. Mary's Group of Institutions Guntur, Chebrolu Village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District -522 212 Represented by its Hon. Chairman and Correspondent Dr. Rev. K.V.K. Rao.

¶138

St. Mary's Women's Engineering College, Budampadu,^{GunturDistrict-522} 017 Represented by its Hon. Chairman and Correspondent Dr. Rev. K.V.K. Rao.

¶139

Dr. Rev. K.V.K. Rao, S/o. Late Venkaiah, Plot No. 102, High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 500070.

¶140

...Petitioners

¶141

AND

¶142

state of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District - 522001 Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶143

Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Committee, 2'"^ Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block, (C Block), NH-16,

¶144

Tadepalli, Guntur District - 522501 Rep. by its Chairperson.

¶145

All India Council for Technical Education, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110 067. Rep. by its Member Secretary

¶146

Union of India, Through Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. Rep. by its Secretary.

¶147

...Respondents

¶148

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2'^'^ Respondent in recommending as well as the 1®* Respondent in notifying/fixing all inclusive annual fee of Rs.40,000/- for B.Tech Program to the^{2"^^} and 3^*^ Petitioner institutions respectively, while notifying the fee for all the private unaided professional higher educational Institutions in the State for the academic year 2024-25 through G.O. Ms. No. 17, Higher Education (R.M) Department, dated 07.07.2024 without proper consideration of the respective fee proposals as well as the representation dt. 10-10-2022 submitted by the Petitioners 2 and 3 for the block period 2023-24 to 2025-26, being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1®' and 2"'^ respondents to determine and notify the all inclusive annual fee of Rs.1,89,578/- per annum for B.Tech program^{fortheacademic} year 2024-25 to the 2"'^ and 3'^'^ Petitioner institutions respectively, as per its respective fee proposals as well as the Representation dt. 10-10-2022 by taking into account the cost required for compliance of the prescribed minimum norms and standards prescribed by the 3'^^ respondent and

¶149

schemes, plans, and budgets of 2"*^ and 3'^^ petitioners to comply with the minimum norms prescribed by the 3^'^ respondent.

¶150

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶151

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1®‘ respondent to fix the minimum^{feeofRs.79,600/-for} B.Tech Program to the 2"'^ and 3'*^ Petitioners respectively^{fortheacademic} year 2024-25, as recommended by the National Fee Committee and approved by 3'^^ Respondent, to enable the petitioners^{tocomplywiththe} relaxed norms fixed by 3 respondent.

¶152

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRICHARAN TELAPROLU

¶153

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶154

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI C. SUDESH ANAND, SC FOR APHERMC Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mrs. UMADEVI MANCHALA

¶155

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P. PONNA RAO,^DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶156

The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT

¶157

APHC010008812024

¶158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3483] AT AMARAVATI

¶159

WRIT APPEAL NO: 182 of 2024 along with W.A. Nos.118,183, 187, 191 & 197 of 2024 and W.P. No.14967 of 2024

¶160

W.A. No.182 of 2024

¶161

...Appellant

¶162

Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory And Monitoring Commission,

¶163

Vs.

¶164

Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering Colleges Managements ...Respondent(s) Association and Others

¶165

¶166

Advocate for Appellant; Mr. P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr. C. Sudesh Anand

¶167

Advocate(s) for Respondent(s); Mr. N. Subba Rao, Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Vijay Mathukumilli

¶168

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶169

DATE : 09.07.2025

¶170

Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ:

¶171

The present writ appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 05.12.2023, passed in a batch of writ petitions bearing Nos.32909, 32967, 35109 of 2022; 20878 and 22945 of 2023. Since the issues of fact and law in this set of cases are same, we propose to deal with them by way of a common judgment and order.

¶172

2

¶173

HCJ a RC,J W.A. No:182 of 2024 a batch

¶174

A batch of writ petitions came to be filed by private unaided engineering colleges established in the State of Andhra Pradesh as also by the Associations representing some of the Engineering colleges. The petitions are filed challenging the notification, dated 30.06.2022, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission requiring data to be furnished as prescribed in 31 Schedules described in the guidelines with a view to fix the fee which the colleges would be permitted to charge.

¶175

The petitioners’ case in brief was that some of the information sought by the Commission was unnecessary and irrelevant besides being cumbersome.

¶176

Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to briefly^{statethefactsas} under:

¶177

There is in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh an Act called the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring^Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2019”). The said Act, according to the preamble, was enacted “to establish the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission to maintain standards of education, regulation of fee, service^condition of teachers and safeguard the interest of students and to ensure public spiritedness, equity, excellence, financial stability and probity along with good governance and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

¶178

3

¶179

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No; 182 of 2024 a batch

¶180

The Act is meant to apply to all higher educational institutions including medical, dental, agriculture, horticulture, engineering and veterinary institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶181

The Commission is headed by a Chairperson, who is to^bearetired Judge of the High Court and other members, in terms of Section 4 of the said Act.

¶182

Chapter III deals with powers and functions of the^{Commission.Section} 9(ii), in particular, provides that the Commission shall have the power to monitor and regulate fee in higher educational institutions^{inaccordancewith} the rules, guidelines and procedures prescribed for that purpose.

¶183

Section 9(a) of the Act envisages the Commission to ensure that standards of admission, teaching, examination, research, qualification of teachers and infrastructure, are maintained by the higher educational institutions in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Regulatory Authorities of the Central Government from time to time. Section 9(b) of the Act further envisages that the^Commission shall have the power to monitor and regulate fee in higher^{educationalinstitutionsin} accordance with the rules, guidelines and procedures, prescribed for the purpose.

¶184

4

¶185

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶186

In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 1 of Section 23 of the Act of 2019, the rules called as ‘the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019’ (for short, “the Rules”) have been framed.

¶187

Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with the power of the^{Commissiontocall} from each institution its proposed fee structure well in advance along with the relevant documents and books of account for scrutiny.^{TheCommission} in terms of Rule 8(2) has the power to decide whether the fee proposed by the institutions is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee.

¶188

Rule 8(3) vests in the Commission the liberty to approve^oralterthe proposed fee for each course to be charged by the institution. The proviso, however, envisages that it shall give the institution an opportunity of being heard before fixing any fee or fees.

¶189

Rule 8(4) requires the Commission to take into consideration the following factors while prescribing the fee:

¶190

“(a) The location of the Higher Educational Institution,

¶191

(b) The nature of the course,

¶192

(c) The cost of available infrastructure,

¶193

(d) The expenditure on administration and maintenance,

¶194

(e) A reasonable surplus required for growth and development^of the Higher Educational Institutions,

¶195

(f) The revenue foregone on account of waiver of fee, if any, in respect of students belonging to the Scheduled Caste,^Scheduled

¶196

5

¶197

HCJ a RC,J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶198

Tribes and wherever applicable to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and other Economically Weaker Sections of the Society, to such extent as shall be notified by the Government from time to time,

¶199

(g) Any other relevant factor.”

¶200

The Rules further envisage that the Commission shall communicate the fee structure as determined by it to the Government for notification under Act 5 of 1983.

¶201

It has been further envisaged that the fee determined by the Commission shall be valid for a period of three years. Rule 8(7) envisages further that the fee so determined shall be applicable to a candidate who is admitted to an institution in that academic year and shall not be altered till the completion of his/her course in the institution in which he/she was originally admitted.

¶202

Section 22 of the Act envisages framing of regulations with a prior approval of the Government. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 1 of Section 22 of the Act of 2019, the Government approved the Regulations called as the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Regulations, 2020 (for short, “the Regulations”).

¶203

The said Regulations were notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on S'*" March 2020. Regulation 4(4) inter alia envisages that the Commission shall have the power to request a higher educational institution to furnish

¶204

6

¶205

HCJ a RC,J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶206

information as may be necessary for enabling the Commission to regulate the conduct of admissions and/or to fix the fee in respect of each course offeredⁱⁿ the institution.

¶207

Regulation 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Regulations, 2020, (for short, “the Regulations”) envisages that the Commission shall decide whether the fees collected or proposed to be collected by the institutions, whatsoever under all heads including hostel and mess charges is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee. It further provides that the decision of the Commission shall be final provided that such decision shall be taken only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the institution to represent its case.

¶208

For facility of reference, the relevant sub-regulations in Regulation 5 are

¶209

reproduced hereunder:

¶210

“(6) For furnishing the fee proposal by the Institution, the Institutions shall submit audited statements of income and expenditure, balance sheets and particulars of expenditure including salaries, infrastructure, hostel & mess facilities and such other information as the Commission may prescribe along with the necessary supporting documents, ledgers and Bank statements in PDF files. (7) The fee proposals furnished by the Institutions^havetobe evaluated based on the income and expenditure of the^{Institutionsas} well as the societies/trusts under whose umbrella the said Institutions are established.

¶211

(8) The Institutions shall submit all the required financial information as per the mercantile (accrual) system of accounting only.

¶212

7

¶213

HCJ a RC, j W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶214

(9) The Institution shall submit the required information^such as the details of the fee collections, income and expenditure statements, teaching and non-teaching staff salaries of all kinds, administrative and other expenses, statement of revenue grants received, utilization of amounts collected under the NRI quota, details of Term Deposits of the Institutions, details of the loans received from the Societies, Banks/Financial Institutions and loans received from other non-banking Financial Institutions, statements of corpus / capital fund, capital grants received and utilised, grants/funds received from any source on account of research projects^andtheir utilization details, legal expenditures, student result particulars and other information. (10) In order to consider the expenditure on teaching^andnon teaching staff, the cadre strength fixed by the respective regulatory authorities and accreditation bodies needs to be adopted.

¶215

(12) In case of any infrastructure and/or services of any staff utilized for more than one programme, the expenditure on such infrastructure and/or staff shall be apportioned appropriately,^based on students strength, among the different programmes.

¶216

(19) The Institutions shall maintain details of student fee collection and utilization, salaries of teaching and nonteaching staff, faculty details subject wise, particulars of infrastructure and other expenditure and furnish the same online to the Commission. (20) If the details required under these guidelines are not furnished or the financial statements furnished are found inaccurate, the financial statements shall not be considered for the fee proposals. (34) The fee approved by the Commission at any point^intime shall be valid for a period of three years next; and subsequent change in fees, if any, shall be applicable only in respect^{ofnewadmissions.} (35) The Commission may recommend the fee in Private Aided or Unaided Higher Educational Institution for different professional programmes of study and different categories of students, having due regard to the guidelines, if any, notified by Regulatory Authorities from time to time.

¶217

(36) (a). The principle of determining uniform fee^structurefor all students of Higher Education Institutions shall not come in the way of determining differential fee structure to benefit the more meritorious sections of students admitted under the convener quota^fromthatof the Management and NRI quota;

¶218

(b) The institution shall be at liberty to collect^thefeeforthe Management quota seats up to two (2) times of the fee^{notifiedforthe} Convener quota of seats in order to maintain quality of education by providing proper infrastructural and instructional facilities and amenities;”

¶219

8

¶220

HCJ a RC,J W.A. No; 182 of 2024 a batch

¶221

The Commission issued a notification, dated 30.06.2022, calling for requisite data to be entered into the relevant portal pertaining to the fee proposals of each institution for the block period of 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26. The data which was required to be furnished was as per relevant Schedules 1 to 31, as contained in the annexure to the notification.

¶222

For facility of reference, the details which were required to be furnished as per Schedules 1 to 31 are reproduced hereunder:

¶223

SCHEDULE	DETAILS TO BE FURNISHED IN THE SCHEDULE
SCHEDULE -1	Programme wise (which includes year wise & category wise) Fee Collections of the institution
SCHEDULE-2	Statement of Other Income of the institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE - 3	Eligible Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020- 2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE-4	Other Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020- 2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE-5	Regular Non Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE-6	Contract Non Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE - 7	Statement of Legal Expenditure (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE-8	Statement of Gardening Expenditure (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE - 9	Statement of Expenditure on Seminars, Workshops, Student ^Related Expenditure, Fests (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE -10	Statement of Expenditure on Scholarships, Merit Awards etc.. Spent by the Institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE-11	Statement of Administrative & Other Expenses of the institution (2020- 2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE-12	Statement of Finance Costs of the institution (2020-2021) & (2021- 2022)
SCHEDULE -13	Statement of Fixed Assets Schedule for Depreciation
SCHEDULE -14	Statement of Grants Received and Utilisation from the Government and Other sources like TEQIP, MHRD etc. (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)
SCHEDULE-15	Statement of Stipend Expenditure
SCHEDULE-16	Statement of Institutional and Quality Parameters
SCHEDULE -17	Statement of Utilisation Expenditure for the Block Period of 2020-2021 to2022-2023bytheInstitution

¶224

9

¶225

HCJ a RC,J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶226

SCHEDULE-18	Statement of Proposed Expenditure for the Block Period ^of 2023-2024 to 2025-2026 by the Institution
SCHEDULE-19	Statement of Fixed Deposits of the institution
SCHEDULE - 20	Statement of Loans Received from Societies, Banks/ Financial Instrtution by the institution and Others
SCHEDULE-21	Independent Income & Expenditure of the Society/Trust
SCHEDULE-22	Independent Balance Sheet of the Society/Trust
SCHEDULE-23	Institute-wise Balance Sheet of the Society/Trust
SCHEDULE - 24	Information Relating to all the Institutions running ^{under the} Society/Trust for the year 2021-22
SCHEDULE-25	Details of Salary Payments as per Form 24Q
SCHEDULE-26	Details of Expenditure on which Tax Deducted Sourses as per IT Act.
SCHEDULE-27	Details of Building Infrastructure & Each Programmes wise ^All Rooms, Hostel Building Separately for the year 2021-22
SCHEDULE-28	Details of Lab Equipment Each Programme wise for the year 2021-22
SCHEDULE - 29	Details of Other Areas (Hostel Building Separately) for the year 2021-22
SCHEDULE - 30	Cash Payments made in excess of Rs.5,000- for each entry etc.
SCHEDULE-31	Books of account (Cash/Bank/Day Book All Ledgers) in pdf format. Bank statements directly down loaded from concerned ^{Bank web sites} in pdf format, copy of income-tax return-7 and Each ^{course wise audited} financial statements certified by Chartered Accountants (2020-2021) & (2021-2022)

¶227

Being aggrieved of the requirement to furnish the data in terms of Schedules 1 to 31, writ petitions came to be filed individually as also one claiming to be in the name of association alleging that it was not humanly possible to enter the data, which was otherwise required as per the schedules which entailed uploading of each and every accounting entry of the institutions. It was urged that it was not necessary to upload each and every accounting entry of the institutions apart from PAN, Aadhar copies of faculty. Form-16 of each and every employee, Bank account details, date of birth. date of admission, pay scales etc.

¶228

10

¶229

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No; 182 of 2024 a batch

¶230

The petitioners’ contention was each institution, therefore requires entering 12,000 to 15,000 entries into the portal which was not humanly possible. Apart from this, it was urged that the petitioners were also required to file physical copies of books of accounts i.e., cash/bank/day book, ledgers in PDF format apart from Bank statements, income tax returns etc., along with copies of each and every bill and voucher.

¶231

It was also the case of the petitioners that out of the 31 schedules prescribed by respondent No.2, thirteen schedules did not relate to the evaluation of fee structure. The thirteen schedules identified by the petitioners were Schedule Nos.7, 8, 10, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31.

¶232

From the record, it appears that W.P. No.32909 of 2022 came up for consideration before the learned single Judge of this Court whereby as an interim measure, the learned single Judge, by virtue of the order, dated 12.10.2022, directed the Commission not to insist on calling for information in regard to certain expenses. For purposes of clarity, the relevant portion of the interim order, dated 12.10.2022, is reproduced hereunder:

¶233

The learned Senior Counsel pointing out this schedule^asfixed by the 2nd respondent submits that this information is not required either under the Act or under the Rules made there under for the purpose of discharging the functions by the 2nd respondent in the matter of regulation of fee for the petitioners’ institutions.

¶234

The contention of the learned Senior Counsel finds force to that extent. In view of the same, the process should go on pursuant to the impugned notification dated 30-06-2022 and in so far as furnishing of all

¶235

11

¶236

HCJ & RC, J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶237

the details by the petitioners are concerned under the schedules like Statement of Legal Expenditure, Statement of Gardening Expenditure, Statement of Expenditure on Seminars, Workshops, Student Related Expenditure, Fests, Statement of institutional and Quality Parameters, Independent Balance Sheet of the Society/Trust, and^{thedetailsofTax} Deductions at Source as per IT Act they shall not be insisted by the 2nd respondent at this stage from the petitioners and in^{sofarastherestof} the details are concerned the same can be furnished by the petitioners and any regulation of fee is subject to outcome of^{thisWritPetition.Inso} far as the salary expenditure and other expenditure are concerned, the actuals should be furnished by the petitioners and^thesame shall be considered by the respondents.”

¶238

Subsequently, by virtue of order, dated 12.07.2023, passed in the same petition, there was a direction to the Commission not to notify the fee for the academic years 2023-26, till 18.07.2023.

¶239

The issue came up again before the learned single Judge^when it was brought to the notice of the Court that the fee for academic year 2023-24 had not been finalized, the counsel appearing for the Higher Education Department made a statement that tentatively the fee^{whichwasfixedforthe} academic year 2022-23 would be considered for the academic year 2023-24 till the fee is finally fixed. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the fee which was already fixed for academic year 2022-23 should be enhanced by at least 15% on the fee which was otherwise chargeable to 2022-23 considering the inflation factor. The Court then ordered thus;

¶240

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel^for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents and on perusal of the material placed before this Court, this Court is^{oftheconsideredview} that the factor of inflation is an admitted factor by the Government as well as other public/financial institutions, the enhancement^offeeatthe

¶241

12

¶242

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶243

reasonable rate is mandatory due to increase in price raise and expenditure. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate^toenhance the existing fee of the academic year 2022-2023 at the rate of 10% for the present academic year 2023-2024, but as far as minimum fee is concerned it should be enhanced more than 10% and finally it is agreed at Rs.43,000/- by all the stake holders.

¶244

For the reasons stated above, the respondents are directed to notify and publish minimum fee at Rs.43,000/- and in respect of other colleges whose existing fee for the year 2022-2023 is more than minimum fees, its fees should be enhanced from the existing fee of the academic year 2022-2023 at the rate of 10% for the present academic year 2023- 2024, as a tentative measure till the finalization of the fee by the Respondent Commission and subject to result of the writ petition.

¶245

By virtue of its subsequent order, dated 19.09.2023, the Court clarified that the orders of the Court regarding fixation of the fee would be subject to the final orders of the Court and that the students be informed accordingly.

¶246

It appears that vide G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 06.08.2023, the State Government issued a notification for fixation of fee for B.Tech, B.Arch and Marine Engineering programs for the private unaided professional higher education institutions. In the said notification, the term ‘fee’ was defined as

¶247

under:

¶248

“The fee is an all-inclusive annual fee, including like tuition fee, affiliation fee, cost of identity card, medical fee, inter college/ inter university sports, games & cultural meet fee, computer/ internet fee, College magazine and student activities, student health care scheme, student welfare fund, study tour, alumni fund, sports and games fee, examination fee including stationery, maintenance and amenities fee, extracurricular activities fee, development fee, Recognition^feeCommon Services Fee and other recurring expenditure."

¶249

Subsequently, it appears that the Commission based upon the data which was furnished, to the Commission, to the exclusion of the data which

¶250

13

¶251

HCJ a RC,J W.A. No:182of 2024 a batch

¶252

%

¶253

was otherwise prescribed by the schedules, as per the directions of the Court in its order, dated 12.10.2022, made recommendations to the Government. The Government, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 07.07.2024 proceeded to notify the fee for the academic year 2024-25 in regard to various colleges tentatively on account of the pendency of the legal proceedings before this Court.

¶254

G.O.Ms.No.41 came under challenge in W.P.Nos.20878 and 22945 of 2023. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned single Judge held that G.O.Ms.No.41 to be bad, illegal and contrary to Rule 2(b) of the Rules inasmuch as the rules defining ‘fee’ envisaged only tuition fee and development charges and not the cost of the identity card, medical fee and other fees, which were stipulated in the notification, dated 06.08.2023.

¶255

The learned single Judge held that the Commission had not discharged its statutory obligation in not providing worksheets to the petitioners with a view to justify the fee fixed in respect of the petitioners’ institutions. It was also held that the educational institutions like the petitioners ought to be given their autonomy for fixing the fee structure and that the regulatory power of the State or its instrumentalities were only limited to ensuring that the institution did not indulge in commercialization of education by collecting capitation fee.

¶256

It was also held that fixation of slabs for a number of heads under the fee component was contrary to the Act and the rules and therefore

¶257

14

¶258

HCJ & RC,J W.A. No:182 of 2024 a batch

¶259

%

¶260

unsustainable. Finally the petitions were disposed of with the following

¶261

directions:

¶262

“23. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are disposed of, remanding to the Andhra Pradesh Higher^Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission with the following^directions:

¶263

a. The worksheets should be furnished to the institutions who requested for them and who provided relevant data for determining the fees during the slab period of 2023-2026

¶264

b. Slabs particular limit cannot be fixed for . ^ . any expenditure category submitted by the institution; rather, they should be assessed based on solely on the relevant data as provided by^{theinstitution}

¶265

c. Notifying the Tuition Fee, inclusive of numerous heads (in contradiction to the definition of 'Fee' in accordance with the Act and Rules), is deemed illegal and arbitrary. Additionally, the Fee must be formally notified in adherence to the Act and Rules, d. While fixing the fee, the Commission should address the claims of the petitioners taking into consideration the rate of inflation, increased expenditure, actual average intake instead of sanctioned strength, accreditations, further improvements towards amenities and research oriented facilities, especially for professional institutions.”

¶266

While Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing^forthe appellant Commission urged that the view expressed by the single Judge is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the requirement of furnishing data as per the notification impugned, dated 30.06.2022 was necessary to fix the fee of a particular college with a view to ensure that there was no profiteering by the respective colleges, it was stated that the data, as was required in the 31 schedules, was furnished by as many as 93 colleges, who had already submitted the data as per the prescribed schedules and that there was no

¶267

reason as to why, if those colleges could produce the relevant data, the petitioners could not do the same.

¶268

15

¶269

HCJ a RC,J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶270

It was urged that the data required as per 31 schedules was^relevantfor scrutiny of expenditure which would thus help the Commission in curtailing profiteering or commercialization of education, and in the absence of data, it would be difficult to arrive at a reasonable fee structure for each institution. It was also highlighted that ingenious methods were adopted by the colleges to claim higher fee in the fee proposal submitted by them, more so, in regard to legal expenditure, expenditure on gardening, organization of seminars workshops, where crores are claimed to have been spent and therefore, if such expenditure were to be allowed by the appellant^{Commissionwithout} regulating the same, it would allow the institutions to indulge in profiteering.

¶271

It was also the stand of the appellant that, with a^{viewtocurbthe} tendency of claiming exorbitant amounts under the head ‘gardening’ where in the past, the institutions were claiming amounts ranging^{fromRs.5lakhsto} one crore, a slab of Rs.5 lakhs was fixed per institution for which a separate schedule is provided to limit the burden on students, as ultimately, it is the students v/ho have to face the burden of the increased fee structure. As regards the seminars and workshops, it is stated that^{theslabhasbeenfixed} between Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs depending on the admitted strength of students in each institution.

¶272

With regard to the verification of the payment made to teaching and non-teaching staff, the stand taken is that the income and expenditure statements approved by the auditors, which are submitted^{totheCommission}

¶273

16

¶274

HCJ a RC, j W.A. No:182of 2024 abatch

¶275

%

¶276

along with fee proposals, are totally incorrect, and^{thatauthenticdocuments} were not being provided by the members of the petitioner Association, as was required, and that information as regards the payment of TDS for teaching and non-teaching staff, was also not being furnished, as it would help in crosschecking the expenditure statement given by the^{institutions.}

¶277

Further, the stand of the appellant is that cash expenditure^inexcessof Rs.5,000/is to be disallowed as per the guidelines of the Commission. However, the institutions resort to splitting of the payments to make it less than Rs.5,000/-, and therefore, the expenditure is required to be verified.

¶278

Learned counsel for the appellant would further place reliance upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association v. the State of Telangana^ wherein the Apex Court had set aside the order passed by the High Court of Telangana by holding that it had exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the recommendations of Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee.

¶279

In the aforementioned case, the Apex Court was considering^theextent to which the High Court could examine the determination of fee structure by the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee in exercise of its power of judicial review. It held that the Court should^{beloathtointerferewith} the recommendations of expert bodies unless it suffered^{fromarbitrariness}

¶280

2019 7 see 172

¶281

17

¶282

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No; 182 of 2024 a batch

¶283

and irrationality, or violated any provisions of the law under which it is constituted.

¶284

It further held that the Could cannot sit as an appellant authority and opine in regard to which manner the fee regulation committee ought to have proceeded without any finding of violation of rules or procedure. It held that the statutory body had not exercised jurisdiction properly and the only option is to remand the matter for fresh consideration and not to usurp the powers of the authority.

¶285

It held that the Court in the garb of judicial review cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the decision maker and take the decision itself as the judicial review lies not against the decision but the decision making process.

¶286

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, on the other hand, placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the^case of Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Thomas P. John^^and in particular, para No. 16, which reads as under:

¶287

“16. A reading of the aforesaid judgments would reveal^thatthe broad principle is that an educational in.stitution must be left to its own devices in the matter of fixation of fee though profiteering or the imposition of capitation fee is to be ruled out and that some amount towards surplus funds available to an institution must be permitted and visualized but it has also been laid down by inference^that if the broad principles with regard to fixation of fee are adopted, an educational institution cannot be called upon to explain the receipts and the expenses as before a Chartered Accountant. We find that the observations of the Division Bench of the High Court^{thatnorational} basis for the fixation of a higher fee for two years had been furnished,

¶288

^ (2008) 8 see 82

¶289

18

¶290

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No;182 of 2024 a batch

¶291

lays down an onus on the educational institution, which^{wouldbedifficult} for it to discharge with accuracy.”

¶292

A lot of emphasis was thus laid by learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the fee fixation Commission could^{nothavesoughtdetailsfrom} the petitioners as if the same were being scrutinized by a Chartered Accountant. It was thus urged that the view expressed by the learned single Judge was justified in law and warranted no interference.

¶293

¶294

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶295

It is settled law that the decision on the fee, which can be charged by private unaided educational institutions, which were not dependent on any funds from the Government, is to be left to such private educational institutions and that fixing a rigid fee structure would be an unacceptable restriction.

¶296

In this regard, the Apex Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka^ in para Nos.54 and 56 held thus:

¶297

“54. The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general,^betoensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure (including qualified staff) and the prevention of maladministration by those in charge of management. The fixing of a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a governing body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominating students for admissions would be unacceptable restrictions.

¶298

An educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution.

¶299

^ (2002) 8 see 481

¶300

19

¶301

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No;182 of 2024 a batch

¶302

Different courses of study are usually taught by teachers^whohavetobe recruited as per qualifications that may be prescribed. It is no secret that better working conditions will attract better teachers.^{Moreamenitieswill} 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^{lefttotheinstitution,if} it chooses not to seek any aid from the Government,^{todeterminethe} scale of fee that it can charge from the students.^{Onealsocannotlose} sight of the fact that we live in a competitive world today, where professional education is in demand. We have been given^tounderstand that a large number of professional and other institutions^havebeen started by private parties who do not seek any governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective student has various options open^{tohim/herwhere,} therefore, normally economic forces have a role to^{play.Thedecisionon} the fee to be charged must necessarily be left to the^{privateeducational} institution that does not seek or is not dependent^{uponanyfundsfrom} the Government.”

¶303

With a view to regulate the fee structures and with^{aviewtoprevent} profiteering, the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of^{Educationv.Stateof} Karnataka'^ held;

¶304

“7 .. Each institute will be entitled to have its own^{feestructure.} The fee structure for each institute must be fixed^{keepinginmindthe} infrastructure and facilities available, the investments^made, salaries paid to the teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or betterment of the institution etc. Of course there^{canbenoprofiteering} and capitation fees cannot be charged. It thus needs^{tobeemphasized} that as per the majority judgment imparting of education is essentially charitable in nature. Thus the surplus/profit that^{canbegeneratedmust} be only for the benefit/use of that educational institution.^{Profits/surplus} cannot be diverted for any other use or purpose and^{cannotbeusedfor} personal gain or for any other business or enterprise.^As, at present, there are statutes/regulations which govern the fixation^offeesandas considered the validity of those this Court has not yet u ^ t statutes/regulations, we direct that in order to give^{effecttothejudgment} in T M A Pai case, the respective State Governments/concerned authority shall set up, in each State, a committee^{headedbyaretired} High Court Judge who shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State. The other member, who shall be nominated by^{theJudge,should} be a Chartered Accountant of repute. A representative^oftheMedical Council of India (in short “MCI”) or the All India^{CouncilforTechnica} Education (in short “AlCTE”), depending on the type^{ofinstitution,shal} also be a member. The Secretary of the State Government in charge^of

also be a

^ (2003) 6 see 697

20

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No:182of 2024 abatch

¶309

Medical Education or Technical Education, as the case may be. shall be a member and Secretary of the Committee. The Committee^shouldbe 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. The fee fixed by the Committee shall be binding for a period of three years, at the end of which period the institute would be at liberty to apply^{forrevision.Once} fees are fixed by the Committee, the institute cannot charge either directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. If any other amount is charged, under any other head or guise e.g. donations, the same would amount to charging of capitation fee. The Governments/appropriate authorities should consider framing appropriate regulations, if not already framed, whereunder if it is found that an institution is charging capitation fees or profiteering that institution can be appropriately penalised and also face the prospect of losing its recognition/affiliation.

¶310

The fee structure, thus, in relation to each and every college must be determined separately keeping in view several factors including, facilities available, infrastructure made available, the age of the institution, investment made, future plan for expansion^{andbettermentof} the educational standard etc. The case of each institution in this behalf is required to be considered by an appropriate Committee.^Forthesaid purpose, even the book of accounts maintained by the institution may have to be looked into. Whatever is determined by the Committee by way of a fee structure having regard to relevant factors some, of which are enumerated hereinbefore, the management of the^{institutionwould} not be entitled to charge anything more. 155. While determining the fee structure, safeguard^has to be provided for so that professional institutions do not become auction houses for the purpose of selling seats. Having regard^{tothestatement} of law laid down in para 56 of the judgment, it would have been better, if sufficient guidelines could have been provided for.^{Suchataskwhich} is a difficult one has to be left to the Committee. While fixing the fee structure the Committee shall also take into consideration, inter alia, the salary or remuneration paid to the members of the faculty^and other staff, the investment made by them, the infrastructure provided and plan for future development, of the institution as also expansion of the educational institution. Future planning or improvement of facilities may be provided for. An institution may want to invest in an expensive device (for medical colleges) or a powerful computer (for technical college). These factors are also required to be taken care of. The State must

¶311

21

¶312

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶313

evolve a detailed procedure for constitution and smooth functioning of the Committee.

¶314

While this Court has not laid down any fixed guidelines^as regard fee structure, in my opinion, reasonable surplus should ordinarily vary from 6% to 15%, as such surplus would be utilized for expansion of the system and development of education ”

¶315

In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra^ while sounding^anoteof

¶316

caution to the committees, the Apex Court held;

¶317

..We expect the Committees, so long as they remain functional, to be more sensitive and to act rationally and reasonably with due regard for realities. They should refrain from generalizing fee structures and, where needed, should go into accounts, schemes, plans and budgets of an individual institution for the purpose of finding out what would be an ideal and reasonable fee structure for that institution.”

¶318

These observations were made on the basis that some committees had

¶319

indulged in assuming powers which had come in for severe criticism for fixing

¶320

a fee structure, which was abysmally low and rendered the functioning of the institutions almost impossible or made the institutions run into losses.

¶321

A balance, therefore, has to be maintained between the genuine efforts of an educational institution to ensure efficiency, quality and productivity and not to provide a fee structure which is unrealistic, leading to closure, while at the same time, the institutions are also under an obligation to fix a fee structure which does not allow them to indulge in profiteering. It is precisely for that reason that the Act, Rules and Regulations supra as mentioned hereinabove were enacted.

¶322

' (2005) 6 see 537

¶323

22 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No; 182 of 2024 a batch

¶324

Although a stand was taken by the petitioners in the writ petition with regard to the schedules being irrelevant and unnecessary, yet there was no finding recorded by the learned single Judge on that issue as to whether the said information, which was sought in terms of the notification made dated 30.06.2022, was unjustified or beyond the scope of the power vested in the Commission to seek such an information.

¶325

The petitioners also did not file any review against the judgment and order impugned before the learned single Judge on the absence of such a finding in the judgment and order impugned, if at all it had been argued. In the ordinary circumstance, a review petition ought to have been filed, which certainly had not been done i in the instant case. The writ petitioners, therefore. cannot succeed on that ground.

¶326

Even otherwise, Regulation 4.4 of the Regulations framed under the Act empowers the Commission to call for such information as may be necessary for enabling the Commission to fix the fee i in respect of such an institution. For facility of reference. Regulation 4.4 is reproduced hereunder:

¶327

phmo the power to request a Hiqher Educational Institution to furnish information as may be^necessarv for toIxS ^he conduct of adml i" ( and " to fix the Tee in respect of each course offered in the Institution(s) - 28. In the instant case, information that is sought in terms of Schedules does not appear to us to be in any manner, irrelevant or beyond the scope of

¶328

23

¶329

HCJ & RC, J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶330

%

¶331

powers, which are otherwise vested in the Commission and, ini particular, Regulation 4.4 of the Regulations.

¶332

Insofar as the fixation of slabs by the Commission

¶333

iin regard to Gardening expenses, holding of seminars etc., are concerned, the same do not find any basis either under the Act or the Rules and Regulations. In fact, there cannot be any slabs fixed by the Commission which iis entrusted with the job of only scrutinizing whether the fee which is claimed under those heads ISi justified or not. Each case will have to be scrutinized individually and the expense would have to be justified by that particular institution.

¶334

There may be cases where the actual expenses could exceed the slab limits either in holding of seminars or for that matter, gardening or payment of legal expenses if they are otherwise reliable and connected to the functioning Of the institution. While it may be true that the burden of an unjustified claim under any of the heads might ultimately be apportioned in the shape of fee among the students, it is preciseiy for that reason that the Commission's regulatory power comes into piay to check on the basis of the information that is sought under various schedules to see whether the claim is genuine and justified or not.

¶335

We are not inclined to accept the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the Government could not have notified the fee as all inclusive fee which included tuition fee, affiliation fee. cost of identity card, medical fee

¶336

24

¶337

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶338

\

¶339

inter-college/inter-university sports, games & cultural meet fee, computer/internet fee, college magazine and student activities, student healthcare scheme, student welfare fund, study tour, alumni fund, sports and games fee, examination fee etc., which was recommended by the Fee Regulatory Commission to the Government on the ground that it was contrary to Rule 2(b) of the Rules.

¶340

For facility of reference, Rule 2(b) of the Rules, reads as under;

¶341

“(b) “fee” means all fees including tuition fee and development charges;”

¶342

As against this, learned single Judge recorded his finding as under:

¶343

“20. From the above, as per Rule 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitory Commission Rules, 2019, “fee” means all fees including tuition fee and development charges. But, as per the Notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.41 Higher Education (R.M) Department dated 06.08.2023, „fee" is defined as inclusive of annual fee which included various heads. Thus, the Commission traversed beyond the Rules, as such the action of the 2nd respondent is nothing but illegal and arbitrary.”

¶344

On a plain reading of Rule 2(b), it is clear that the definition of ‘fee ’ is not exhaustive as was misinterpreted by the learned single Judge but was an inclusive definition and could include the fee on various heads in addition to the tuition fee and development charges.

¶345

The next question that arises for consideration is whether the institutions are entitled to be provided the worksheets pertaining to their

¶346

25

¶347

HCJ €t RC, J W.A. No: 182 of 2024 a batch

¶348

respective institutions to know as to what was the basis for fixing fee by the Commission.

¶349

Regulation 5.5 of the Regulations in this regard is relevant and reads as

¶350

under:

¶351

“(5) The Commission shall decide whether the fees collected or proposed to be collected by the Institutions, whatsoever under all heads including hostel & mess charges, is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee. The decision of the Commission shall be final provided that such decision shall be taken only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the institution to represent^its case.

¶352

Whenever a fee proposal is submitted to the Commission, the Commission, after scrutinizing the relevant data, which is produced by an institution arrives at a particular amount, which it feels is chargeable by that college from a particular candidate after considering the various relevant heads on which the institution claims the fee as chargeable. The right of hearing as envisaged under Regulation 5.5 would be effective and meaningful only If the worksheets or copies thereof are furnished to the respective institutions, who make a request for the same, before giving them a reasonable opportunity to represent their case. A reasonable opportunity to represent the case before the Commission decides to slash the proposed fee would be meaningless, as at the stage of hearing, before the Commission takes a decision on the proposed fee structure, the Commission does not disclose its mind to an institution. The

¶353

26

¶354

HCJ a RC, j W.A. No:182 of 2024 a batch

¶355

1

¶356

worksheet would ordinarily contain as to what was claimed and what was disallowed. Such a worksheet then ought to be provided to the institution, which would then come forward to justify as to how the slashing of the fee under a particular head was unjustified.

¶357

We do not find any basis for upholding the direction as contained in para 23(d) of the judgment to the extent it orders that while fixing the fee, the actual average intake of students be considered instead of sanctioned strength of students for the reason that the same is not otherwise traceable to the rules and regulations in force. 36. In our opinion, the fee structure has to be regulated and determined strictly in accordance with the rules and in particular Rule 8(4) of the Rules. We are also of the opinion that the interim directions issued by the learned single Judge on 12.10.2022 preventing the Commission from seeking information with regard to the various heads led to an incorrect assessment of the fee structure of the institutions. Since we have already held that the information which was sought for by the Commission in terms of Schedules 1 to 31 were all relevant and were required for a proper determination of the fee structure, the present set of cases are disposed of with the following directions: While directions 23(a) and 23(b) of the impugned judgment and order are upheld, direction 23(c) IS set aside. In regard to direction 23(d), it is

¶358

27 HCJ a RC,J W.A. No:182 of 2024 a batch

¶359

ordered that the Commission shall determine the fee^{structurestrictlyinterms} of the Rules and, in particular, Rule 8(4) of the Rules.^{Direction23(d)shall,} accordingly, stand modified to that extent.

¶360

The writ petitioners shall, within two weeks from today, furnish all the material data as is otherwise envisaged to be provided in terms of the notification, dated 30.06.2022, in schedules 1 to 31.^{TheCommission,after} shall tentatively determine the fee. The worksheets or considering the data copies thereof be furnished ot the institutions, who^{maythenbegivenan} in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules read opportunity to make a representation with Regulation 5.5 of the Regulations and if any fee^{whichisclaimedundera} the Commission should record reasons for such particular head is disallowed a disallowance and communicate the same to the respective institutions.

¶361

vide G.O.Ms.No.17, dated The fees fixed by the Government considered to be tentative and shall be subject to^afee 07.07.2024, shall be recommended and accepted by the structure which is duly assessed Government.

¶362

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No

¶363

costs.

¶364

//TRUE COPY//

¶365

Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar

¶366

SECTION OFFICER

¶367

To,

¶368

The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, State of AP, Secretariat, Tullur, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶369

The Registrar Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Kakinada, Kakinada A P 533003.

¶370

The Registrar Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Anantapur, Anantapuramu AP -515002.

¶371

The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur

¶372

District-522001.

¶373

Chairperson, Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Committee, 2"^^ Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block, (C Block) NH16, Tadepalli, Guntur District - 522501.

¶374