The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the high course fees charged by unaided educational institutions for the year 2003-04, relying on a Full Bench judgment that allowed institutions to determine rational fee structures absent profiteering.
All writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.18676 of 2003
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.18676 of 2003 Date of Decision.05.01.2015
Harjot Kaur and others
.......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
2. CWP Nos.18677, 12237, 19937 of 2003 and 3244 of 2004
Present: Mr. Aayush Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Addl. A.G, Punjab.
Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate for the respondent- Panjab University in CWP No.12237 of 2003.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
K. KANNAN J.
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.01.07 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.18676 of 2003
-2-
institutions. The cases were being considered in the light of State notification dated 14.05.2003 for entrance test for admission to MBBS for the year 2003. That provided a fee of 13,000/- per student for “free seats” and 1.10 lacs for “payment seats”. The petitioner institutions had issued their prospectus prescribing its rational fee structure i.e. ` 4 lacs per annum in the General Category. The said fee structure was accepted by the Medical Council of India. Referring to the policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health, Government of India and the decision in TMA Pai Foundation , the Full Bench observed that the private unaided educational institutions shall have the right to determine the fee structure but no capitation fee would be charged and fee structure has to be rational without profiteering but would even include a reasonable revenue surplus for development of education and expansion of education. The Bench answered the issue of what was payable as fee and that every institution was free to devise its own fee structure but the same could be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering. The decision of Full Bench will govern the issue involved in these cases and I will find no reason for making any interference in favour of the petitioners.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
January 05, 2015 Pankaj*
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.01.07 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the fee structure prescribed by unaided private educational institutions for MBBS/BDS courses when a Full Bench has already settled the law.
Whether the courts can strike down prospective fee structures of uninstitution-based educational institutions by finding no reason for making interference.
Whether the principle that private unaided educational institutions have the right to determine fee structure without capitation or profiteering applies here.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWP No.17752 of 2005Followed¶20
TMA Pai Foundations Vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶20
TMA Pai Foundations Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 · Who else cites this
CWP Nos.12013 of 2003Referred¶20
CWP No.19667 of 2005Referred¶20
Harjot Kaur and others
State of Punjab and others
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
