IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1691 of 2004 Between: Deccan College of Engineering and Technology, Darusalam Hyderabad, rep.by its Principal Prof.M.Amir Ali S/o.Mohd.Mahboob Ali, R/o.Sehanaz Apts, GFI, Masab Tank Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner, Technical Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Convenor, EAMCET Engg.Admissions, Commissioner Technical Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Executive Secretary, Society for Networking for Excellence in Technical Education, Room No.31, 6th Floor BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus (a) by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the G.O.Rt.No.1011, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dt.29.12.2000 in forming the SONET as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and consequently quash the same (b) to direct the respondents to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the amounts illegally deducted from the petitioner's College and (c) to award costs of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner against the respondents for subjecting the petitioner to unnecessary litigation. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.G.K.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3&4: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Deccan College of Engineering and Technology, Darusalam, Hyderabad rep. by its Principal questioning the validity of G.O.Rt.No.1011 Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 29.12.2000 under which the Society for Networking for Excellence in Technical Education has been formed. The petitioner also seeks direction to the respondents to return the membership fee and endowment fee collected for the years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2003- 2004 with interest at 24% p.a. and costs of Rs.50,000/- 2. Prof.Amir Ali, Principal, Deccan College of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad, has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The affidavit averments in brief are: The petitioner Institution was registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. It is running an Engineering College in accordance with the Rules and procedure prescribed by Law. The 1st respondent, on the basis of the recommendations of the 2nd respondent, issued G.O.Rt.No.1011 Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 29.12.2000 for establishment of society for Networking for Excellence in Technical Education. Under the said G.O.Rt, 2nd respondent was directed to take necessary action to get the society registered and 3rd respondent was permitted to deduct the fees payable to the Society by the Engineering Colleges from the fee collected from the Engineering Students during EAMCET Admissions and credit the same to the society fund. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is not empowered to issue direction for establishment of society for Networking for Excellence in Technical Education. For better understanding the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras.12 to 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which read as hereunder: “12. It is humbly submitted that consequent of the said GO, the 1st respondent is compelling various educational institutions like the petitioner herein to join SONET and also contribute the funds to the society. SONET at best is a society registered under Societies Act, no person can be compelled to become a member of the Society, SONET. The action of the 1st respondent in compelling the institutions to join and contribute to the said society, SONET is therefore without authority of law and is impermissible. 13. It is submitted that the 4th respondent herein has deducted an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- towards membership fee and endowment fee for the academic year 2000-2001, 2001-2002 from the amounts collected towards tuition fee, latest deduction being Rs.1,00,000/- towards Membership fee for the academic year 2003- 2004. It is further submitted that petitioner in fact protested for such deduction from the tuition fee in favour of 4th respondent herein. The 3rd respondent herein without any authority in an arbitrary and capricious manner deducted the membership fee, which is highly illegal and colourable exercise of power. 14. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has not given any willingness or consent to join as a member of the society, SONET and has not consented for payment of any amount much less the deduction of fee payable to the Petitioner Institution by the 3rd respondent. The said unilateral action in deducting the amount from the fee collected from the students at the time of admission is unjust and illegal. The action of the Respondents in issuing the impugned to GO and further consequent illegal actions of the respondents in compelling the petitioner to make payments to the SONET, formed under the impugned GO is wholly illegal, arbitrary, without power or authority and hence Petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 3. Respondents 1 and 4 filed counter-affidavits. R.Laxmaiah, Asst. Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department, Govt. of A.P., has sworn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the 1st respondent is empowered under Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act to grant permission for the establishment of a college including Technical Institution. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the State Government are endeavouring to promote excellence in the technical education and to improve the standards and quality of technical education, different rules and regulations have been framed. The 1st respondent is empowered to take steps as it may consider necessary for the purpose of providing quality technical education in the State. As there are number of engineering colleges established under private managements and as those colleges were not properly equipped with sufficient trained staff to give quality learning to the students, it was felt necessary to accord permission for formation of a society in the name of “Society for Networking for Excellence in Technical Education”. The main object of the society is to provide an organizational frame work for networking and cooperation among various engineering colleges/technical institutions. Therefore, on the proposal of the Commissioner of Technical Education, A.P., Hyderabad, in consultation with the representatives of the managements of the private engineering colleges, orders have been issued vide G.O.Rt.No.1011, HE (EC.2) Department, dated 29.12.2000 approving the by-laws of the Society for Networking for Excellence in Technical Education. As per G.O.Rt.No.1011, the Commissioner of Technical Education/Convenor, EAMCET-Admissions is permitted to deduct the fee payable to the said Society by the engineering colleges from the fee collected from the engineering students admitted through EAMCET and credit the same to the said Society fund. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the membership of the petitioner Institution has not been collected with effect from 2004-2005. 4. B.V.Krishna Rao, Executive Secretary, Society for Networking for Excellence in Technical Education, Sanketika Vidya Bhavan, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that out of nearly 327 engineering colleges, almost all the colleges have joined the Society, except the petitioner Institution. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that engineering colleges have been supplied with KU-Band equipment, CDs containing educational content etc. alongwith other member institutions and the same was refused by the petitioner Institution. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Institution submits that the 1st respondent is not competent to form the Society and the field is occupied by the Central Government. He would also contend that the amount collected from the petitioner Institution is liable to be returned since the petitioner is not inclined to avail any of the bands provided by the Society. 7. It is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent that membership fee is not being collected from the petitioner Institution with effect from 2004.05. It is explicit from G.O.Rt.No.1011 Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 29.12.2000 that the society came to be formed to provide an organizational framework for networking and cooperation among various engineering colleges and technical institutions to improve the quality of technical education. Since the petitioner Institution is not willing to avail any of the facilities provided by the Society, the 1st respondent cannot compel the petitioner Institution to pay any membership fee. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to collect the membership fee from the petitioner Institution. The petitioner Institution is at liberty to take necessary steps for recovery of the amounts already collected from it by taking recourse to common law subject to the period of limitation. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:22nd June, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}