THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.27195/2007, 19318/2008, 26133/2008, 9007/2009 AND 26881/2009 COMMON ORDER Dt:08-02-2010 Between : Adarsha College of Education, Giddalur, Prakasam District and others ..Petitioners And The Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Guntur and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri SAK Mynoddin, G.Vidyasagar, P.V. Venkateswara Rao & S.Sri Ram Counsel for respondents : Sri A. Satya Prasad, Addl. A.G < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.27195 of 2007 & batch COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are Colleges of Education, affiliated to Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District (for short the ‘University). They feel aggrieved by the demand made by the University, for payment of development fee and infrastructure fee. The University issued individual notices to the petitioners, insisting on payment of the fee, under different heads, viz., affiliation fee of Rs.40,000/-, for an institution, with an intake of 100 students, infrastructure fee of Rs.1,500/-, per each student, and development fee of Rs.2,500/-, in respect of each student, admitted under the management quota. The petitioners contend that the payment of fee, referred to above, excluding the one, for affiliation fee, is contrary to law, and not supported by the relevant provisions. On behalf of the University, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the University has provided extensive infrastructure for regulating the courses and conducting examinations; and to meet the expenditure, the levy of fee has become necessary. According to them, the petitioners have collected the fee, referred to above, from the students, and they cannot raise any objection for remittance of the amount to the University. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the affairs of the University are governed by the provisions of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short ‘the Act’), and the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made thereunder. According to them, the University can levy fee, if only it is provided for under the concerned subordinate legislation. It is their specific case that, there is no statute, ordinance or regulation that empowers the University to levy the infrastructure fee or development fee. They deny the allegations that the petitioners have levied any amount from the students towards that fee. Sri A.Satya Prasad, learned Additional Advocate-General appeared on behalf of the University. He submits that it is the prerogative of the University to levy fee, to meet the expenditure for the services rendered by it, to the institutions. Learned counsel contends that the University has provided extensive infrastructure, for the benefit of the institutions and the students, and levy of fee, to meet the expenditure, has become necessary. He further contends that the development fee is collected from such of the students, who have been admitted against management quota, almost as a compensatory measure. According to him, the levy of development fee cannot be found fault with, when institutions themselves are collecting substantial amounts from the students. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that even if there is no legal basis for demand of the amounts, referred to above, the petitioners must remit the amount, in case they have collected the amounts from the students in the name of the fee. The petitioners are Colleges of Education, affiliated to Nagarjuna University. Since the course is framed, examinations are conducted, and degrees are conferred by the University, it is entitled to collect fee of different type. While in certain cases, the fee is to be paid by the students, directly, in others, it is to be paid by the Institutions. The University is governed by the Act, which applies, generally, to many Universities in the State. Section 5 of the Act enlists the powers and functions of the University. Clause 20 deals with the power to fix and demand the fees. It reads as under: “Sec.5. Powers, functions and objects of the Universities:- - Every University established under this Act shall have the following powers, functions and objects, namely:-- (1) xxx (2) xxx (20) to fix fees and to demand and receive such fees and other charges as may be prescribed xxx” The word ‘prescribed’ is defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, as “prescribed by Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations”. A combined reading of sections 5(20) and 2(14) makes it clear that a University can fix and demand fee, only when it is prescribed under the statutes, ordinances or regulations. Under Chapter IX of the Act, the power to make statutes is conferred upon the Executive Council. Sections 51 and 53 stipulate the subjects on which the statutes and ordinances, respectively, can be made. The Executive Council of the University is conferred with the power to make these subordinate legislations, though the procedure stipulated therefor is slightly different. The Regulations, on the other hand, are made by the Academic Senate, as provided for under Section 55 of the Act. The University would have been justified in demanding the infrastructure/development fee, if there existed any statute, ordinance or regulation, providing for it. The petitioners categorically state that no such subordinate legislations were made. This is not denied by the respondents. The demand is made only on the basis of a resolution, said to have been passed by a Committee, constituted by the University. The manner in which the amount is being spent, is also mentioned. Unless a statute, ordinance or regulation is made by the concerned authorities of the University, accepting or incorporating the suggestion made by the Committee, it does not get any statutory force. Therefore, fixation and demand of development fee and infrastructure fee cannot be sustained in law. The matter, however, does not rest at that. On behalf of the University, it is pleaded that the petitioners have collected amounts towards development/infrastructure fee from the students, and they cannot be permitted to retain it, for themselves. Across the Bar, the petitioners have denied this allegation and some of them have filed affidavits also. However, if any of the petitioners have collected the development/infrastructure fee from the students, they cannot keep the amount for themselves. Either it has to be refunded to the students or must be paid to the University. It is settled principle of law that an individual cannot enrich himself by retaining the amount, which he otherwise was not entitled to collect. In many cases arising under the Income Tax and Sales Tax enactments, even where the levy and collection was found to be not permissible in law, directions were issued to the effect that, in case the concerned person has collected the amount from a customer, he would be under obligation to pay it to the Government, notwithstanding the adjudication, as to the legality of demand. For the foregoing reasons, a) the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the demand notices issued to the petitioners, on the ground that they are not based on any statute, ordinance or regulation, made under the A.P. Universities Act, 1991; b) it shall be open to the University to inquire as to whether the petitioners have collected any amount from the students, towards development fee/infrastructure fee, and if it emerges that the fee has been collected, the petitioners shall be under obligation to refund the same to the students, or pay it to the University; and c) if any statement made by the petitioners in this regard is found to be incorrect, that would, by itself, be a ground to deny the renewal of affiliation. There shall be no order as to costs. ​ _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-02-2010. KO