IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20/01/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN W.A.No.4059 of 2004 and W.A.No. 4060 of 2004 and WAMP.Nos.7648 & 7649 of 200 and W.P.Nos.30650, 27332, 24209, 24210, 25652, 25653, 33824 to 33834, 33850 to 33858, 33866 to 33874, 30980, 32989, 34136, 34514, 28281, 27358, 24523, 24248, 25377, 26148 to 26153, 26906, 26907, 28799, 33557, 33558, 34528, 32210, 35771 & 36883 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.Nos.37136, 33250, 29392, 29394, 31173, 31175, 40904 to 40914, 40936 to 40944, 40956 to 40964, 37542, 41640, 34339, 33281, 39906, 41267, 29799, 29447, 30851, 31780, 31782, 31784, 31786, 31788, 31790, 32770 to 32773, 34989, 40555, 41654 and 39007, 44258 & 43059 of 2004 W.A.No.4059 of 2004: I.Saraswathi. ... Appellant. -Vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Govt., Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Principal, Ragas Dental College and Hospital, No.2/102, East Coast Road, Uthandi, Chennai 600 119. ... Respondents. W.A.No.4060 of 2004 1.Deepta Ramarao 2.R.J.Rajalakshmi 3.Shubhakara,L 4.S.K.Gayathri 5.Ramya,D. 6.S.Dhanalakshmi 7.E.Sandhiyaa 8.M.Deivanayagi 9.U.Durga 10.V.sangeetha 11.Kapil Dev Kumar,S. 12.T.T.Kathikeyan 13.E.P.Kailash Nath 14.G.Yvaraja 15.M.Premkumar 16.R.Antonette Rhea 17.S.Subha 18.T.Anitha 19.G.Devi Rathna 20.S.Nasreen 21.V.Subashini 22.a.M.Ramhya 23.S.Menagapriyatharshini 24.S.Karthikeyan 25.M.Ganesh Kumar 26.M.M.Ramya Devi 27.A.Sasi Rekha 28.J.Gifrina 29.C.Indumathi ... Appellants. vs. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Govt., Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 3.The Principal, Ragas Dental College and Hospital, No.2/102, East Coast Road, Uthandi, Chennai 600 119. ... Respondents. W.A.No.4059 of 2004 filed against the order in WP.M.P.No.39906 of 20 04 in W.P.No.32989 of 2004 dated 24.11.2004. W.A.No.4060 of 2004 filed against the order in WP.M.P.No.41267 of 20 04 in W.P.No.34136 of 2004 dated 24.11.2004. W.P.No.30650 of 2004 Ragas Dental College and Hospital rep. By its Secretary, 2/102, East Coast Road, Uthandi, Chennai 600 119. ... Petitioner. -Vs- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai 600 009. 2.Committee for fixation of fee in unaided private professional educational institutions (minority and non-minority), rep. By its Member-Secretary, Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028. 3.The Additional Director of Medical Education/ Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai 600 010. 4.The Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai, rep. By its Registrar, Chennai. ... Respondents. W.P. filed for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. W.A.Nos.4059 & 4060 of 2004 !Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram Sr. Counsel for M/s.Gladys Daniel ... for appellant. ^Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Sr. Counsel for M/s.Muthumani Doraisamy ...for 2nd respondent. Mr.V.Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader for R1. W.P.Nos.30650 and 27332 of 2004 Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Sr.counsel for Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy ... for petitioner. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Addl.Advocate General/ Sr. Counsel for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1 and R3. Mr.Vellaisamy ...for R4. W.P.Nos.24209, 24210, 24652, 24653, 24523, 24248, 25377, 26148 to 261 53, 26906, 26907, 28799 and 32210 of 2004: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Sr. Counsel for Mr.V.Ayyadurai ... for petitioner Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1. Mr.G.Masilamani, Sr. Counsel for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates .. for R2. W.P.Nos.33824 to 33834, 33850 to 33858 and 33866 to 33874 of 2004: Mr.K.Chandrasekaran ... for petitioner. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1 & R4 Mr.Vijay Narayan, Sr. Counsel ...for R2. Mr.Vellaisamy ...for R3. Mr.G.Masilamani, Sr. Counsel for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates ... for R5. W.P.No.30980 of 2004: Mr.G.R.Swaminathan ... for petitioner. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1 & R3 Mr.Vellaisamy ...for R4. W.P.Nos.32989 & 34136 of 2004: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Counsel for M/s.Gladys Daniel ... for petitioner. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1 W.P.No.33557 & 33558 of 2004: Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates ...for petitioner. Mr.Vijay Narayan, Sr. Counsel ... for R1 & R5. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R2 Mr.Vellaisamy ... for R3. W.P.No.34528 of 2004: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Sr. Counsel for Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy ... for petitioner. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1 & R3 Mr.G.Masilamani, Sr. Counsel for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates ... for R4. W.P.Nos.34514 and 27358 of 2004: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Sr. Counsel for Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy ... for petitioner. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1 & R3 Mr.Vellaisamy ... for R4. W.P.No.28281 of 2004: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Sr. Counsel for Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy ... for petitioner. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1 & R3 Mr.G.Masilamani, Sr. Counsel for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates ... for R4. W.P.No.36883 of 2004: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Counsel for M/s.Gladys Daniel ...for petitioner. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1 Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Sr. Counsel for Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami ... for R2. W.P.No.35771 of 2004: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Counsel for M/s.Gladys Daniel ...for petitioner. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel/Addl. Advocate General for Mr.V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader ... for R1 :JUDGMENT N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J. The common point that arises in this batch of cases, some of them being writ petitions filed by the management of self-financing professional colleges, some being writ petitions filed by the students and some being writ appeals preferred against interim orders passed by a learned Judge of this Court, is the validity of the order of the Permanent Committee for the Fixation of Fee for private professional educational institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu fixing the fees payable by the students in respect of self-financing professional colleges of medicines, health science, para-medical courses like, M.B.B. S., B.D.S., M.D.S., etc. We heard all the matters together. 2. Since the points that arise in the cases are common, it will be convenient to refer to the averments made in one or two writ petitions filed by the colleges and the averments made in some of the writ petitions filed by the students. 3. W.P.No.30650 of 2004 is filed by Ragas Dental College and Hospital and the petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Proceedings No.SFPC/PC on the file of the Permanent Committee for Fixation of Fee for Private Professional Educational Institutions dated 13.8.2004 and quash the same. The main ground of challenge is that the Permanent Committee, while fixing the fee structure, has failed to take note of the relevant factors as indicated by the Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2003) 6 SCC 697  hereinafter referred to as Islamic Academy case) and the Permanent Committee was not correct in fixing the fee for all the colleges at a uniform rate in spite of the fact that each and every institution had made claim based on infrastructure, facilities and amenities available in the individual institution. It is the case of the management that the Permanent Committee acted beyond the directions of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case. It is stated that though the petitioner supplied materials, but the Permanent Committee has not observed the principles of natural justice by giving a reasonable opportunity to the institution to represent its case. It is the case of the management that the representations submitted along with supporting materials were not considered by the Permanent Committee and the Permanent Committee failed to adhere to the directions of the Supreme Court in the matter of fixation of fee structure. The petitioner referred to the location of the institution and its advantages and the salary payable and paid to the teaching and non-teaching staff as per the UGC norms. It is stated that the management of the self-financing colleges are not treating the students allotted under the Government seats on par with the students admitted by the management and hence, for the grounds raised in the writ petition, it is prayed that the order of the Permanent Committee should be quashed. 4. In another writ petition filed by one of the colleges (W.P.No.3452 8 of 2004), it is stated that the petitioner college has submitted representation before the Permanent Committee along with material particulars which are necessary to fix the fee in respect of the petitioner institution for different courses in B.E. The ground of challenge is that the fee structure has to be fixed depending upon the available infrastructure and other amenities on the basis of cost plus method of a particular institution and there is no scope for uniform fees. According to the petitioner, the Permanent Committee has not taken into account the relevant factors as directed by the Supreme Court, but fixed the fee structure mechanically. It is stated that there is violation of the principles of natural justice and violation of fundamental rights. It is stated that the Permanent Committee has not taken into consideration the directions of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case. It is further stated that the petitioner college has got many development schemes and is estimated to provide further amenities which require fixation of enhanced fee. Hence, it is prayed that the order of the Permanent Committee should be quashed. 5. As far as writ petitions filed by the students are concerned, we take up W.P.No.33824 of 2004. It is the case of the petitioner in W. P.No.33824 of 2004 that the fifth respondent therein, namely, Meenakshi Medical College is granted the status of Deemed University. This would have no effect in so far as the petitioner and other similarly placed students as they have been admitted in the academic year 2003-04 and the recommendation of Raman Committee is very much applicable to them and UGC has also fixed for the academic year 2004-05 the fees for MBBS at Rs.1,30,000/- and it is not open to the college to collect fees more than what is fixed by the Permanent Committee. It is also stated that the fees collected for the academic year 2003-04 is excessive when compared to the fee structure for the academic years 2004-05 to 2006-7 fixed at Rs.1,30,000/- and hence, the excess fee collected for the academic year 2003-04 is illegal and the college is bound to refund the excess fees collected. It is therefore prayed for the issue of a writ of declaration to declare that the petitioner is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from the academic year 2004-05 to 2006-07 as fees inclusive of annual fees and other fees like, admission fees, tuition fees, special fees, laboratory/computer fees, internet fees, library fees, sports fees, placement and training fees, development fees, maintenance and amenities fees, extra-curriculum activities fees and other recurring expenses to the college and consequently direct the institution to collect only the said fee from the academic year 2004-05 to 2006-07 and refund the excess fees collected from the student for the academic year 2003-04. 6. In one another writ petition filed by a student in W.P.No.32989 of 2004, the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case and the report of the Committee. It is stated that the college, the second respondent in the writ petition, commenced the second year BDS course even before the announcement of results for the first year and the students were asked to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- immediately and the students sent a written representation to the college stating that they are obliged to pay only the fees fixed by the Committee, but however, on 10.11.2004 it was informed by the college by an undated letter that the second year students should pay Rs.1,59,000/- in two instalments without giving the details regarding the writ petition filed and interim orders obtained from this Court. The petitioner referred to the representation made by the students to the Government dated 11.11.2004 requesting the Government to direct the college to comply with the order of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case. It is stated that in the writ petition filed by the college, the students have not been impleaded as parties. It is stated that the students who joined the BDS course in the year 2 002-03 are paying only Rs.50,000/- as annual fee and the students who joined the course in the year 2004-05 are paying only Rs.75,000/and hence, it is unreasonable to direct the students who joined the course in 2003-04 to pay Rs.1,60,000/- as fees. It is stated that the students who joined in the year 2003-04 are being singled out for discriminatory treatment. Hence, the writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to comply with the order of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case in the matter of fee structure for BDS course in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 7. In another writ petition filed by some of the students in W.P.No.30980 of 2004, the respondent college is a dental college. The writ petition has been filed to direct the college to retain the fee of Rs.75,000/- for the first year B.D.S. course for the academic year 2004 -05 as fixed by the Committee. The averments made in the writ petition are also similar to the other writ petitions filed by the students. 8. In another writ petition, W.P.No.33557 of 2004 the students are challenging the demand of Rs.2,50,000/- as tuition fees for B.D.S. course for the academic year 2004-05 in the fourth respondent college. It is stated that even assuming without admitting that in view of the Deemed University status conferred upon the college for the year 200 4-05, the college would be entitled to collect a fee of Rs.1,00,000/- as fixed by the UGC, the fee for the first and second year would aggregate only to Rs.1,55,000/-. Hence, the petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the college from collecting any tuition fee higher than that fixed either by the State Government or by the UGC in respect of B.D.S. course and to direct the college to adjust the surplus amount collected from the petitioner/ students in the year first year of B.D.S. course towards the fees payable by them for the subsequent years. 9. Though a number of writ petitions have been filed, we have gone through the same and the points raised in all the petitioners are more or less similar. 10. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the management of some of self-financing colleges referred to the details of the writ petitions filed by the colleges as well as by the students and the background of the case. He submitted that the Permanent Committee by fixing a uniform annual fees of Rs.75,000/- for all dental colleges has overstepped its jurisdiction. His main submission was that the Permanent Committee has to approve the proposal submitted by "each institution" taking into account various factors including the infrastructure and facilities available, the investments made, salaries paid to the teachers and staff, future plans for expansion, etc. He submitted that "each institution" has the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students and the institution must also be able to generate surplus which must be used for the betterment and growth of the institution. He referred to the Islamic Academy Case and submitted that the Committee has not taken into consideration the various directions given by the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case and hence, the order of the Permanent Committee suffers from various legal infirmities. He also submitted that there is violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was granted to the institution before the order proposing the fixation of fee structure was passed. He also submitted that there is violation of fundamental rights and there is no indication in the order of the Permanent Committee that the fees proposed by the college are fixed to make profiteering and the college is charging capitation fees. He therefore submitted that relevant factors have not been taken into consideration like, infrastructure, facilities available, investment made, salaries paid to the teachers and staff, etc. and hence, the order of the Permanent Committee is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that in so far as the students who were admitted in B.D.S. Course in the academic year 2003-04 and 2004-05 are concerned, the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481  T.M.A.Pai Foundation case) would govern and the fee structure fixed by the management is subject to the result of the writ petition. In so far as 3rd and 4th year students in B.D.S. Course who were admitted in the year 2002 are concerned, the fees had already been fixed and hence, the students are not entitled to claim refund or even to claim adjustment of the same. His foremost submission is that the Permanent Committee has failed to fix the fees for each institution, but merely fixed a uniform fee structure. He also submitted that the method adopted by the Permanent Committee in fixing the fee structure is not correct. He submitted that the fee fixed is inequitable and there are no materials at all to sustain the reasonings of the Permanent Committee. He submitted that the Permanent Committee has failed to consider the fact that MBA, MCA courses are taught in self-financing engineering colleges as also in the Arts colleges affiliated to various Universities in Tamil Nadu and fixing of uniform fee for all the institutions at the same rate would run contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case. 11. It is also useful to refer to the arguments of Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for Meenakshi Ammal Dental College and Meenakshi Medical College. His main submission was that on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation case, which was clarified in Islamic Academy case a rigid, uniform fee structure cannot be fixed and "each institution" must have the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. He also submitted that in so far as Meenakshi Medical College is concerned, taking into account the circumstances, the fee was fixed at Rs.3,95,000/- and the college is a Deemed University and the Government cannot interfere with the right of fixation of fee by the University and the college is justified and within its right to fix the fee of Rs.3,95,000/- per student. He also referred to the Income and Expenditure Account, the Balance Sheet and other particulars furnished to the Permanent Committee and submitted that the fee of Rs.3,95,000/- fixed for the Medical College is reasonable. 12. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel/Additional Advocate General appearing for the Government submitted that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as the Permanent Committee gave ample opportunity to all the colleges to make representation, but the colleges did not avail the opportunity. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the Permanent Committee has taken into consideration all the relevant factors and the directions of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case and no case has been made out to interfere with the orders of the Permanent Committee. 13. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of some of the students referred to the decision in T.M.A.Pai Foundation case as well as Islamic Academy Case and submitted that fee has been fixed by the Committee and the demand for higher fee by the self-financing professional colleges is not legal and the colleges are to adhere to the fee structure fixed by the Committee. She also submitted that the fee of Rs.1,59,000/fixed and collected from the students of BDS course is exorbitant. She submitted that the Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration of some points that arise out of the decisions in T.M.A.Pai Foundation case and Islamic Academy Case, particularly the fees payable by the students and hence, no reliance can be placed on the judgment in Islamic Academy case. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the Supreme Court has also passed interim orders to the effect that pending reconsideration of the decisions, the fee fixed by the Experts Committee should be charged. She also submitted that the fee fixed by the Committee is effective from the academic year 2003-04 and the excessive fees collected from the students during the academic year 2003-04 should be adjusted against the fees to be collected for the subsequent academic years as the students have paid the fees for the year 2003-04 subject to fixation of fees by the Committee. 14. Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for some of the students submitted that the students are merit students and the seats have been allotted by the Director of Medical Education in Meenakshi Medical College. He submitted that they are all allotted under merit quota and they should be charged the fees as fixed by the Government for Government colleges. His alternative plea is that the fee collected by the college is exorbitant and he produced before the Court a tabular column showing that exorbitant fee was collected by the college. He also submitted that the Committee has taken into consideration all the aspects as held by the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case. His submission was that this Court is not an appellate authority sitting over the fees fixed by the Committee. He also submitted that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that though the college declared to be a Deemed University coming under the control of UGC, the students admitted in the academic year 2003-04 continue to be the students of Dr.MGR University and the UGC fixed Rs.1.30 lakhs per year for the students of the academic year 2004-05. He submitted that the students of the year 2004-05 are required to pay Rs.1.30 lakhs per year, while the students of the year 20 03-04 are required to pay a sum of Rs.4.49 lakhs. He submitted that the excess fees paid by the students should be kept in Fixed Deposit and should be adjusted towards future fees as per the judgment in Islamic Academy case. After the conclusion of hearing, learned counsel also submitted that the students are asked to vacate the hostel and they are not allowed to take up the examinations also. 15. Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, learned counsel appearing for some of the students submitted that Rs.2,50,000/- collected from the students of BDS course is not legal. He also submitted that the college is affiliated to Dr.MGR Medical University in so far as the students of the year 2003-04 are concerned and the Directorate of Medical Education for B.D.S. Course fixed only a sum of Rs.55,000/- for the academic year 20 03-04, but there was a demand from the students to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for the second year. He therefore submitted that the demand of Rs.2,50,000/- is illegal as the college continues to be affiliated to Dr.MGR Medical University in so far as the students of the year 2003-04 are concerned and even assuming the college has been conferred the Deemed University status, the maximum fee that it can charge is Rs.1,00,000/- as determined by the UGC for BDS course. He therefore submitted that since the students are required to pay only Rs.55,000 /- per year, the excess amount collected which is lying in the college should be adjusted against the future fee to be collected from the students. He submitted that the demand of the college from the students of second year for payment of Rs.2,50,000/- for the academic year 2004-05 is illegal as it is exorbitant, arbitrary and against the judgment of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case. He also submitted that under section 7 of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, if the college is charging a fee more than the sum prescribed by the Permanent Committee, the college is liable to be penalized. 16. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned senior counsel as well as learned counsel for the parties. In so far as the submission that there is violation of