^~^s, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR! SUNiL KUMAR SiNHA, J. V: Writ Petition (Cl No.59S1 of 2007 Petitioner Avur Viavan Shikshan Samiti, A Societv Segistered under the CG Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 Through Secretary', MangHal Ssnkhia agsd about 45 years S/o Ramlal Sankhla R/o Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Kealth snd FamiSy Planning, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ralpur (CG) 2 Directorate Indian Medicinal System and Homeopathy, State of Chhattisgsrh Through its Director, Raipur (CG) 3 Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Wetfare Department of Ayurved Yoga and Naturopathy Unani Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) indian Red Cross Society Annexe Bullding 1 Red .Cross Road Nsw Deihi -110 001 Council of Indian Medicine Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi -110058, Through its Secretary' Petition under Article 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of Indla ?resent : Shri Jitendra Paii, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the State / respondents No.1 & 2. Smt Fouzia F^lrza, Assistant Soiicltor Genera! for Union of tndia / respondent No.3. Qrder (11thMarch, :^x 2 The following order of the Court was passed by g Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 2) Petitioner Ayur Vigyan Shikshan Samiti has filed this wrlt petiSion for the foiiowlng reliefs : "i To kind!y cail for the records of the case from the respondents. ii To kindly issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17/09/2007 ANNEXURE P/15 and iii To kindly issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to allow the petitioner to keep on charging the fee already fixed by it in 2006-2007 until the Fee Flxation commlttee would be appointed in due process of !aw determining the fee structure to be applied to the coilege of the petitioner and iv To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and Just in the facts and circumstances of the case inctuding awarding of the costs to the petitioner." 3) The matter reiates to fees structure of BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical Science) course in the State of Chhattisgarh. 4) Petitioner Ayur Vigyan Shikshan Samiti is running Ayurvedic College in the State of Chhattisgarh in the name and styie of Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic Medical College at Rajnandgaon. The petitioner is mainly aggrleved of the order dated 17.09.2007 (Annexure P/15) issued by respondents No.1 & 2 whereby the l3b petitioner has been directed to charge fees from the students @ Rs.35,000/- per annum only. 5) Shri Jitendra Paii, learned counset for the petitioner referring to Ruie 10 of Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, HorReopathy and Unani Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2003; the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs State of Karnataka SCC 481, para 56, Islamic others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 and PA Inamdar and others Vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2008) 6 SCC ?37, vehemently argued that the State Government is not competent to fix fees to be charged by the petitioner from the students. 6) In the counter affidavit filed on behaif of respondents No.1 & 2, they have contended that in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of IsSamic Academy of Education and another Vs State of Karnataka (supra), Justice Jha Committed was constituted to deal with the fees structure of Private Un-aided Professional Colleges of the State, and the fees structure of is.35,000/- per student per academic session was fixed. The petitioner / Society was charging exorbitant fees and the same was not in consonance wlth the recommendation of Justice Jha Committee's report. Therefore, the petitioner/Society was directed to charge the fees at the above rate whlch is equivalent to the fees charged in other Ayurvedic Coileges of the State. /z. .,^.^^te, ^ &»!-&£$& -^ '"•^'... 'W.S •s^ 7) We note that in the orders dated 11 .08.2006 and 29.08.2006 (Annexure P/6 & P/7), granting permission to the petitionerto admit students, it was categorically mentioned that the fees fixed bv the Justice Jha Committee constltuted in compliance of the directions of the Apex Court would be binding on the petitioner. On these conditions only, the petitioner was granted permission to admit students. We further note that in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, in para 4 it vrfas categorically mentioned that the modification of the fees by the State Government woutd be acceptable to the petitioner. For ready reference, the contents of Annexure P/6 and P/7 are quoted as under: \2. -ff3) ciwim ^ig 'TO:(, WTI}< 492001 T^S 16-12/2003/'-:?t/ 55 Wq?, ftTO; 11 3W«t,2006 mw't> W^E( RI^^I T%f^ ?E| ?nirrNt, »TOl'M'i<»wy t^TO:- ^(d'l'H'l's Siig^ Afecbd ^f^?, '<iu|-lic;<!ic! ^ ^3T ^r sqnfit eFRg l, WT*- 3TW5T ^iW W!R 3/'?iT./2008/180, t^TR! 15/5/200S. n^ 'H^cb!^, ^c[RK! ipf 4Rc!|\i ci?"<4|u| "^,|"|<4, 3TPjf^, iftTT '(^ yi<t}Rltp Rl1*^1, ^THT RI^ ^ ^Tt^ft f^Pm ^ TR (CTTO 3IR - 12011/3/2005/i t\. fN^ 27-3-2006 c^ T?{^Rq ^ W3!? ?[T(R, '(M^sRT, 31iy ^?H ftRTT )%??, •<iui'ii^liiq gro fl^iRia y^-'i'i'id 3{ig^ ^EIi^ c|iic>r'Jt '<|yiTlii;iliq ^t W&R? ^R 2006-07 ^ RlP ^l^.WyR. Ul'iydati ^ HSW ^ 4 'a^T AST 'HTPT ?!W ?pt Sl^H^'SqR ^RTOT t 1 2/ ycrfl'tl'l^ 3T!^i? Trf^q?"T qrf^jr ^M^i'i'lic! ^ cTfe fl^?r SPRff 75 ^fte ?pft CCT HFFta ^zRpr 'ywiay ^ ^?IT ?R ciSB '?T3q 4 'ITf&?r ?n ^ftfrr ^ STO' 'f^iifer ^ictj? ^rr g^r wqr ^ ^p; eiq-icRi^ ?TT[ i ytaltii!$ <!"ti4ici ^ ?iW ^ WI31R^TiR <^/- (asgwT ?n?i) \ 3IER WcR MW-T.iUtil^hPi 1 1149 IMcbt-hb Kto IhAU. cK>T& Uypy IMS t-U.II^ ^ tBUA 1 ^fe ^UhA 131ti|Tl(.b |* 1?:^ >tS>t khy ^isMh Us& iihttiL ^ & te^ MftT-ii^y |ri> r?y h E-L ichsjcb ^ eooz htty is^ii i^ | a^ /z ^ ^ Jl^JA ll^ i^& uyihy JM& ^ ^ytii ll£ j^ii. ^ isa^ £g{3 aj^y * h-Plhlh- kUbaft •yh c^ | i]Ht Jli^. 2ahi. yt 3t? ^g ^ifc ybli ^hEtE; ^b hPIByiSk MU£^a 21^. SZ ^te lltaK ^ Jtifcfcfilh 'BA'iA'^ &. ZO-900Z •6& (i2i^B(£ M& >-»"?; '^El Kf^lsite Uthlb life ^ii By&^ PjfMfrhy sooz's'ti i&y±y'ss/^/eooe/zi.-^i. tnh fyid fch 'f^iie -^tSBi hMia i^hEte ^ l^n -iin^ (Oll.Os) Miibli'W?. 'lnUitb UUi&jh ^&ie SJtl^pfi •MblK 90-8-6Z wy^ '>hh\> w StSe/yOOS/'lt^/e thihw s>i> yufi "!t»&^s^ ys>h i i^]y h'i^ih. 'h.l-Si^i.sibB.. i<ilUtSl InlMtfe iilbyh fcil tESiiM ^M WiMWiK y^^bie -./^ i P^lti t'iw 'S 1 K3 (3!bh.lt,b tbh.&blte ^ pll-lA. cijfi ^ I bllibll-lrM?. ?-),> -^y 'lft>k 'UjhJl* InRilA] t-l6y ^K| 'bbJB. •Z 1 biliiall-lrl?. 'IMctiktlte bbfrl'ft IV>^\ 'Q 1 blliblt-lflK '(>.ltt>j3]K> h%MM bfi IW<Qb| t2S!& 'S I blliblkW?> 'kabWcb 't- 1 )SM> 'ttWK-h a>bWWP, 'Aibyh jih hw-lb^ ('rli+.K B.pW.l h r?"iX h'^4lH 'blij'H- ift*j '£ i >fih\> 'hWK-h '>.L)'<yiK *!». * y^ tS& 'S 1 xfih.l^ SI>W,ILUW \K.hM& 'bbjft tS>6 Mllfi 'l. -yRJujh'- 900Z 'l»ii il iiili-y '^M^ SS/y;/eOO^/^l.-9^ iha Ml^0& l>lkbj MWOp Mt)Mh b?i i-»U<; BiiHiimft ^v3^. ^&s.. "^ £f" l? s a '!&< 9 ^•y" ^".f -f ~~^// v»f \2£ ;^ j 6 w^t/- ^RRW *[R?N B!R?!^H! q^frf ^ Wrol'M'16'' ift 8) The permission granted to the petitioner/society to admit students vide Annexure P/6 and P/7 was conditional one with the specific condition that the fees fixed by the Jha Committee and the State Government would be blnding on the petitioner. The petitioner atso submitted an affidavit to the effect that the fees fixed by the Government would be acceptable to the petitioner. Now, the petitioner, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the fee fixed by the Committee and the State Government as the petitioner never challenged the condition imposed while grantlng permission to the petitioner to admit students vide Annexure P/6 and P/7. 9) We, therefore, do not find any substance In the petitioner's challenge to the order passed by the State Government Annexure P/15, whereby the petitioner has been directed to charge only Rs.35,000/- per annum as fees from the students and further to adjust the excess amount charged from the students in the future years. 10) The writ petition, therefore,fis llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) Consequently, the interim order dated 27.09.2007 stands vacated automaticaliy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge