1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2943 OF 2009 1] Mahatma Gandhi Mission Trust through its Secretary, Ankushkumar s/o. Nanasaheb Kadam R/o. Aurangabad. .. petitioners Versus 1] State of Maharashtra through its Secetary, Department of Education and Drugs, Mantralaya Mumbai. 2] Shikshan Shulka Samiti, Govt. Polytechnic Building, 3rd floor, 49, Kherwadi, Ali Yawar Jang Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051 .. Respondent. --- Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent NO.1 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 14/10/2009 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13/11/2009 JUDGMENT : - [PER B.R. GAVAI,J] :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the respondent NO.2 Shikshan Shulk Samiti, to the extent that the fee structure for the course beginning from academic session 2007-08 has been made applicable till the completion of the said course. 2 2] Heard Shri Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.V. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 3] Shri Salunke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Islamik Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003)6 SCC 697, and in the matter of “P.A. Hinamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2005)6 SCC 537 the Shikshan Shulk Samiti cannot fix the fees for a period of more than 3 years. He therefore submits that the impugned order in so far as it determines the fees and makes it applicable till the completion of the course is concerned, the same is contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court. He submits that on earlier occasions, the respondent No.2 itself had determined the fees, which were in force for 3 academic years only. 4] Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 Committee submits that the petitioners have totally misinterpreted the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of “Islamic Academy “, and in the matter of “P.A. Inamdar” (supra) that the fee fixed by the committee can be operative for a period of 3 years, only. He submits that perusal of the observations of the Apex Court in the above referred two judgments would reveal that the purpose of the committee in determining the fee is to ensure that the educational institutes do not indulge into profiteering. He further submits that taking into consideration the fact the course is for a period of 4 and ½ years in so far as MBBS is concerned, 4 years in so far as 3 Engineering is concerned and in so far as the PG is concerned, it is for 2 years, and in order to enable the parents of the students, as to what shall be the expenditure to be incurred by them for education of their children, it has decided that the fee once determined has to be charged for the entire course. He, therefore, submits that the Committee is constituted under the Govt. Resolution dated 24th September, 2003 and it is required to decide the formula for the fee of the course and give it publicity. He further submits that the said Govt. Resolution provides that the fees would be applicable for the entire course. Relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of “Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Delhi” reported in (2009) 3 SCC 634 and in the matter of “C. Balachandran and others Vs. State of Kerala and others” reported in (2009) 3 SCC 179, the learned counsel submits that the directions issued by the Apex Court under Article 142 have to be read in entirety and in consonance with the statutory provisions. 5] We find that the interpretation of the petitioners of the aforesaid two judgments of the Apex that the fee cannot be prescribed for a period of more than 3 years, is without substance. It can be seen that the purpose for issuing directions issued by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two cases is to ensure that the educational institutes do not indulge into profiteering. The Apex Court in para. 2 of the judgment has observed thus :- 4 “ 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 for revision.” It can thus be seen that once the fee structure is determined, the educational institutes are bound to follow the same for a period of 3 years and if any revision is required, they can apply after a period of 3 years for revision. 6] We find that the rational by the committee in determining the fee structure for the entire course, taking into consideration that the period of each course varies (i.e. MBBS, Engineering, PG Degrees), is on reasonable basis. We also find that the reasoning of the Committee as stated in the affidavit, that in order to enable the students and their parents to know as to how much expenditure, they would be required to incur, prior to taking admission for the course, meets the legitimate expectation of the students, while ensuring that the educational institutes also get a reasonable fees. 7] We, therefore, do not find any perversity in the approach adopted by the committee. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. [N.D. DESHPANDE] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-