A c .^\OJl IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION N0. ^f^l'^ OF 2005 PETITIONER ^ ...^^" ^^ :^ .^' <^>^^^ '^^~y ^^. Ankita Fatnani D/o Shri G.K. Fatnani, aged about 19 years, Stu^ient of MBBS First year'in CIMS Bilaspur, C.G. R/o B-17 Agyay Nagar Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS '^^ srr yl. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department cf Health and Family Welfare, D.K.9. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Bilaspur, C.G. ,2. Director Medical EduGatiQr|L, State of Ohh^ttisgarh, Raipur, C.G. 3. Guru Ghasidas University Bilaspur, Through the Registrar, C.G. 4. Dean Chhattisgarh Inistitute of Medical Science (CIMS) Bilaspur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. --"L._.-_._^^^^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATT1SGARH: BILASPUR (Full Bench) WRIT PETmON N0. 3642 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION N0. 2482 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION N0. 2548 OP 2004 WRtT PETITION N0. 2546 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION N0.2994 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION N0.3033 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION N0. 2883 OF 2005 WRtT PETITION N0. 3827 QF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0. 3853 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0. 3892 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0. 4041 OF 2005 WRIT PETmON N0. 2476 OF 2005 WRIT PETmON N0.2708 OF 2005 ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION v,.A \ HON'BLE SHRl FAKHRUDDIN. J Sd/- Chief Justice JUDGE /09/2005 HON'BLE SHRt L.C. BHADOO. J cf ^if^y^- l1^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Postitfor: a-3/09/2005 Sd/- ChiefJustice w HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILA8PUR (FullBench) r^ CORAM : Hon'bte Chief Justice Mr. A.K. Patnaik Hon'bte Mr. Justice Fakhruddin Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.C. Bhadoo WR1T PETITION N0. 3542 OF 2004 Sudjep Shrivastava VS. State ofChhattisgarh and others Present:- For tiie Petitioner: For Respondent No.l For Respondents 4.7&8 For Respondent No.6: For Respondent No.9: For the Interveners: Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prateek Sharma. Advocate. Mr. Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashish Shrivastava and Mr. Amrito Das Advocates Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate Mr. Vinay Harit, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narayan Shrivastava, Advocate Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senlor Advocate wlth Mlss Ritu Mishra, Advocate. WRIT PETITION N0.2482 OF 2004 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal V8. State ofChhattisgarh and others Present:- For the petitioner For respondents 1 & 2 For respondents 4 & 5 Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Prateek Sharma.Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bai^J. Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Amrito Das. Adv. For respondents No.6 Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Adv. ^ NNi WRIT PETITION N0. 2546 OF 2004 AnandBhattar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Present:- For the petitioner For respondents 1 & 2 For respondents 4 & 5 For respondents No.6 Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Prateek Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Adv. WRIT PETITION N0.2548 OF 2004 Rimpal Bachu V6. State of Chhatttegarh and othere Present- For th®petitioner For respondents 1 & 2 For respondents 4 & 5 For respondente No.6 Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Prateek Sharma.Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shmastava. Sr. Adv.. with Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Adv. WRIT PETITION N0.2994 OF 2004 Ku. Ritika Oohwai V8. State of ChhatUsgarh and others Present:- Forthepetitioner Mr. P. Diwakar, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Adv. For respondents 1 &2 For respondents 3 & 4 For respondente No.5 Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Goyt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., wjth Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. Mr. RanbirSingh Marhas.Adv. WRIT PETITtON N0.3033 OF 2004 Satya Prakash Slngh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Present:- For tho petitioner For respondente 1 & 2 For respondents 4 & 5 For respondents No.6 Mr. Shrawan Chandol, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Adv. WRIT PETITION N0. 2889 OF 2008 Ku. Vinshi Naaz Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Present:- Forthepetitioner For respondents 1 & 2 For responctents 3 & 4 For respondents No.5 Mr. Kishore Bhadun, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Adv. WRIT PETITION N0.3827 OF 2005 Ankita Fatnanl Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ^' Present:- Forthepetltloner For respondents 1 & 2 For respondente 3 & 4 Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Baja], Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. WRIT PETITION N0.3853 OF 2005 Ku. Neha Rani Verma Vs. Sfesite of Chhatti^garh and others Present:- ForthepeUUoner For respondents 1 & 2 For reapondents 3 & 4 Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. WRIT PETITION N0.3892 OF 2005 Arshiya Moin Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Present:- For the petitioner For respondents 1 & 2 For respondents 3 & 4 Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Prateek Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. WRIT PETITION N0.4041 OF 2005 Harsh Jain Vs. State ofChhattisgarh and others Present- For the petitioner For respondente 1,2 & 4 For respondents No.3 Mr. Kanak Tiwari. Sr. Adv., with Mr. Prateek Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Adv. WRIT PETITION N0.2476 OF 2005 Smita and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Present:- Forthepetitioner For respondents 1 & 2 For respondents 4 & 5 For rospondonte No.6 Mr. Shrawan Chandel, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj. Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Amrito Das. Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Adv. WRITPETITION N0.2706 OF 2008 Somendra Dhariwal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Present- Forthepetitioner For respondents 1 & 2 For respondents 4 & 5 For respondents No.6 Mr. Shrawan Chandet. Adv. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Adv. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.. with Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. Mr. RanbirSingh Marhas, Adv. Kl. at lilKtt B 6 O R D E R (Passed on 23rd September 2005) The foitowjng order of the Court was passed byA.K.Patnalk,CJ. W.P. No.3642 of 2004 is a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) flled'by a practtolng Advocate at Bilaspur and a journalist and soclal activist and the other petitions are writ petitions filed by individual students chalienging the decision of the Chhattisgarh fnstitute of Medical Sciences and Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur to charge foos of Rs.34,500/- and Rs.2,50,000/- per student admitted into the free seats and payment seats respecth/ely in ttie M.B.B.S. degree course of the Chhattjsgarh Institute of Medical Science. Bilaspur. 2. Tho facts briefly are that the Stete of Chhattisgarh was formed w.e.f. 1.11.2000 by the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. In the newly formed State of Chhattisaarh. there was only one medical coilege at Raipur with only 100 seats for the M.B.B.S. course. A second medical college In the State of Chhattlsgarh was, theretore, thought necessary in the public interest to meet the deficiency of qualified medical personnel in the State and to improve the availability of medical manpower in the Qtate. Accordingly, pursuant to an eariier resolution of the Planning and Evolution Board of the Guru Ghasidas Univorsity, Bilaspur (for short "the University"), the State Government and the University entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 18th January, 2001 to establish a second medjcaj coltege in the State of Chhattisgarh to be called the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (for short "C1MS"). Under the said Memorandum of Understanding (for short "ttie MOU"), CIMS was to 3» be established, owned and managed by the Unwersity and for ©stablishmentof CfMS, the Stato Government was to provide the Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patet Government Hospital, Bilaspur with 467 beds, and wrth all its faciljties and steff as well as land measuring 25 acres in and around the said hospitai along with the assets and CtlVIS was to be a joint venture of the Unlversity and the State Government. The MOU further provided that the exlstlng tecllitles of medlcal equipment of the said hospital shall b@ aveiilabte, extended and upgraded for the use of the studente of the proposed CIMS for fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Medical Council of India. Aftor the MOU, tho Stat®Govwnment has provided to CIMS the funds and financiat support towards non-recumng expenditure on all necessary infrastructure compn'sing of buildjng, equipment. books and furnjture but the recumng expenditure on qualjfied doctore and other staff are belng met by CIMS out of the fees recovered from the students admjtted to the different medical courses in CIMS. For meeting such recumng expenditure, out of the 100 seate on the MBBS course, CIMS started colleoting in the year 2001 R8.29.500/- per year per studont for tho first 50 fre®seats and Rs.1.44.000/- per year for the remaining 50 payment seate including 15 seats for Non-resident Jndians (NRI) and further Rs. 15 lakbs in the first year and Rs.10 Jakhs for the remaining years from Non-resident fndian students on yearly basis. Since Non-resldent Indian students were not available for admlssion, the decision for collecting these additional amounts of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs from Non-resident Indian studente was given up and with effect from 2002-2003 fee against all payment seats was enhanced to Rs.2,50.000/- per year. Tho rutes for admission to the MBBS course for the session 2004-2005 wero framed and approvod by the Executive Council of the ^ 8 University providing. inter atia, for fees of Rs.34,500/" per academic sossion for freo soats (govornmont quota soate) and Rs.2,50,000/- por academic session for payment seats (management quota) for the academic session 2004-2005. Statute No.35 was also amended on 2.1.2004 provjdino for fees of Rs. 34.500/- per year from a stuctent admltted to the MBBS course in a free seat and Rs.2,50,000/- from a student admitted to the MBBS course against a management seat of C(MS. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decjsions of tho authorities of the University and the CIMS, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articlo 226 pf tho Constitution of India praying for quashing tho doctejon of the authorities of CIMS and the Unh/ersity to admit candidates in CIMS in the MBBS course against payment seats by recovering fees of Rs.2.5 lakhs per annum per student and for directing the authorities of CIMS and the Untverslty to admit candldates who have secured more and better marks than the students admittsd against the payment seats in tiie MBBS course of CIMS on the basis of the results ofthe Pre-Medical Test held by the State of Chhattisgarh for the academic session 2004-2005. 3. A prellmlnary objectlon was ralsed by Mr. Manlndra Shrivastava learned counsel appearing Tor CIMS and the Universtty that no prayer ha^ been made in any ofthe writ petitions for quashing the rules for admtesion to the MBBS courso and Statute No. 35 underwhich fees of Rs. 34.500/- per yoar per student for admission to the MBBS course in a free seat and the fees of Rs. 2.50.000/- per student for admission to the MBBS course against a management seat of CIMS are fixed. We would have granted tirne to the petitioners to amend the petltions and add a prayer for quashlng the rules for admlsslon and Statue No. 35 underwhteh ^. 9 the aforesaid fees of Rs. 34.500/- for admission to free seats and Rs. 2,50,000/- for admission to the payment seats hav®been fixed. But grant of such time would have unnecessarily delayed the hearing and disposaf of these writ petitions which need to be disposed of at the eariiest in the jnterest of the students as well as the CIMSand the Universjty. Moreover. the law is well settled that the Court has ample powers to mould the appropriate relief In any given case and for this reason we are not accepting the aforesaid technical plea raised by Mr. Shrivastava and instead proceed to dispose ofthe matter. 4. Mr. Kanak Tlwari. learnecl counsel for the petltloner, submitted that the only reason given in the return filed on behalf of respondent nos.4, 7 & 8 for charging high fees of Rs.2,50,000/" from studente admjtted against the payment seats is that tho Universify and CIMS have to generate their own funds to meet the recumng ©xpendfture on the safary of the teaching and non-teaching staff of CIMS and to fuffill the norms laid down by the Medical Coundl of India. He vehemently submitted that CIMS js a govemment college and, therefore, the State Government of Chhattlsgarh has to provide funds for the recurring expenditure on salary of teaching and non-teaching staff and other expenditure on establishment of the CIM8. He submitted that in W.P.No. 2097 of 2004 the High Court passed an order dated 21.8.2003 constituting a committoo consisting of the Chief Secretary, Vice Chancellor of the University; Secretary. Health, Government of Chhattisgarh; and the CoKector. Bilaspur to inspect the CIMS hospital and prepare a project report for improvement in the all-round functioning of the hospital and submlt the report, and this direction would not have been Issued by the ^ 10 High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution had the High Court not treated CIMS as a government hospital. Ho roferred to Clauses (2) and (3) of ftie MOU dated 18.1.2001 annexed to the return of respondents nos.4, 7 & 8 as Annexure R-4/2 to show that CIMS is a govemment college. He also referred to the document annexed to the said return as Annexure-R-4/1 to show that the doctore who have been working under the government have been posted in CtMS. He submitted that it will be clear from page no. 10 of the Action Taken Report of the University submitted in compliance of the order dated 11.2.2004 passed by ttiis Court in W.P.NO. 2097 of 2003 that a loss of Rs.17.20 crores per year suffered by CIMS was to be compensated by the State Government by way of special grants in the budget of Hjgher Education Department of the Govemment of Chhattisgarh. He further submitted that a copy of the letter dated 8.5.2004 annexect to the second supplementary action taken report of the University submitted in compliance of the order dated 28.4.2004 in W.P.No. 2097 of 2004 will also show that the State Govemment was to provide a sum of Rs.16.92 crores in its project for CIMS. He poi'nted out that 15% seats of CIMS for MBBS cours®aro assjgned to All India candidates and such 15% of the seats are assigned to AJI Indja candidates only in Qovernment colleges and this fact would also go to show that CIMS is a government cojlege. He further pointed out that under Regulation 2(7) of the Medlcat Council of India Establishment of Medteal Colleges Regulations, 1999, a person desirlng to establish a medical college has to provide two performance bank guarantees from a scheduled commercial bank valid for a period of five years in favour of the Medical Council of India, New Delhi butthe Proviso to the said Regulation 2(7) states that this condition witl not appty to State Govemmente if they give an undertaking 11 to provide funds in their plan budget regulariy fill the requisJte facilities are providod as por tho timo bound programmo and tho bonofit of this proviso must have been avajled by the CIMS and this would also go to showthat CtMS is a flovernment medical college. He argued that J.N.M. Medical College. Raipur is owned and managed by a society and iffor admission In the J.N.M. Medlcal College, Ralpur only a fee of Rs.12,000/- is charged (from all students taking admission to the MBBS course), charglng of fee of Rs.34,500/- per annum charged from students admitted against free seats and Rs.2,50.000/- per annum from studente admitted to payment seate in CtMS which was a Govemment Medical Coltog®was arbitrary and discriminatory and violative ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution. 5. In reply to the afore^aid ^ubmiwions, Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, learned counsol appearing for th®Univorsity and the CIMS submtttod that CIMS «snot a medical coltege owned and managed by the State Government but is a medical college established by the University under Section 6(4) ofthe Chhattisgarh UniversjtyAct. 1973. He submitted that 'rtwill be clear from the MOU dated18th January, 2001 annexed to the return as Annexure R-4/2 that CIMS Is an Institutlon owned and managed by the Univereity and the State Government was to provide only some infrastructure facidties. He submitted that the State Government has given somo grants to meet the non-recurring expenditure of CIMS on infrastructure facilities such as bujlding, books, equipment, ete. but the Universify and CIMS have to rajse resources for meeting the recurring expenditure on teachinfl and non-teachinfl staff and on other establishment expenses of CIMS. He argued that sinc®CIMS is not a govemment college It cannot be equated wlth the J.N.M. Medical College, 12 Raipur, which is fully funded by the State Government. and the fees charged by CIMS which is a selffinancing institution is bound to be higher than the fees charged by the J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur. 6. We have perused the order datod 21.8.2003 of the Division Bench in W.P.No. 2097 of 2003 referred to by Mr. Tiwari. The relevant portion of paragraph 2 of the said order dated 21 .8.2003 is quoted herein befow: " tt is stated that the Sardar Vadabh Bhai Patel Hospital whteh was popularly known as Dharam Hospsitat is now under the control of Guru Ghasidas University and known as Chhatttegarh Institute of Medical Sctences (CtMS)... ,....'• Thus, in the said order dated 21.8.2003, the Dh/ision Bench of th@ Court has recognized the fact that the Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel hospital was come under the control of the University and is known as CIMS. Hence. the contentlon of Mr. Tlwart that the DMsion Bench of the Court awhlle passing the said order dated 21.8.2003 in W.P.No.2097 of 2003 has treated CIMS as a government jnstitution i$ not correct 7. Clauses 1, 2, 3 & 4. of the MOU dated 18.1.2001 annexed to the return as Annexure R-4/2 are extracted hereunder:- "1. That the name of the Medlcal College shall be the Chhattlsgarh Institute of Mectical Sciences (CIMS) and the same will be established by the Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. That the CIMS shall be owned and managed by the Guru Ghastdas Uniwrsity, Bltaspur (C.G.). 13 ^ 3. That for th©©etablishmentof the propo&ed CIMS, the State Govt. has provided both the Sardar Valtabh Bhai Patef (S.V.B.P.) Govt. Hospital, Bilaspur (C.G.) and the land of25 acres in and around the S.V.B.P. Hospital along with the assets therein on 99 years lease for th©construction of building and other amenities of the tnstitute. The University towards its share shall be providing the staff, equipments and constructed building for the purpose. 4. That the 467 bedded S.V.B.P. Govt. Hospital with all the facitities and staff shall be avaitabte to the students of the proposed CIMS which shatl be soon upgraded into a 500 bedded hospital to fulfil this norms of Medical Council of India (MCI) has been handed over to the University and that the State Government of Chhattisgarh has also earmarked 96.00 acres of land in Birkona Balka No.100, Khasra No.10/1. 39 & 40 forthe purpose of constructton of Building and other amenities of the proposed Institute as and when required in future. Thus, the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medtoat Sciences (CIMS) is now a joint venture ofGuru Ghasidas Universityand Govt. of Chhattisgarh. It will be clear from the language used in the aforesaid ctauses 1 and 2 that CIMS was to b©©stabjishodby the University was to be owned and managed by the Universjty. Clause 3 of the MOU, however, stipulated that for establishment of CIMS. the State Govemment was to provide the Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel government hospital and the land of 25 acres in and around the said hospital along wlth the assets therein on 99 years lease for the construction of building and other amenities of the institution and the University was to provide its share towards the staff, equipments and ttie building. From claus®4 of th®MOU, it woutd be clear that CIMS was to bo a joint vontyro of tho Univorsity and tho Chhattisgarh Government. The provtsions of MOU dated 18.1.2001 do not show that ^ NNNNI, 14 CIMS was to be a government institution. On the other hand, the MOU mado it ctoar that CIMS was to bo ostablishod by tho Univorsity and tho Government only provided Sardar Vallabh Bhaj Patel hospitel with all the faciljties and staff forestabJishment of CIMS. 8. After tho MOU, tho State government appears to have also agrood to provido grarvte for tho non-rocumng exp^ndituro of CIMS on building up th@ required infrastructure but the fact that government has provided grants to build the infrastruoture facjljties of CIMS does not make CIMS a government instltution. The fact that there was a proposal in the Actlon Taken Report for meeting the loss of Rs.17.20 crores of CIMS by way of special grante from the State Government also does not make CIMS a government institution. These facte only establish that CIM8 wa3 at best a govemment aided institution. 9. Clause 3.1 of the Rules for admission in CtMS whfch relates to assignment of 15% of the seate to AIJ India candjdates is quoted hereunder:- "3.1 Out of Govt. Quota seats, 15% seats are asslgned to all India candidates. Aocordingly, 7 seats shalt be for all India candidates in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Gury Ghasldas Universlty. Selection for these seats wltt bebased on Atl India Pre-Medioal Entrance Examination.M The language of the aforesaid Rule 3.1 of the Ruleo for admiwion to MBBS course of CIMS for the session 2004-2005 would show that15% seats of the MBBS course are assigned to all India candidates and the said 15% seats have been described as govemment quota seats. This means is that government will nominate the candidates to these 15% IN^" 15 seats assigned to all India candidates on the basis of Pre-Medical Entrance Examination does not mean that CIMS is a government institution. 10. No materiate have been placed before the Court by the petitioner to show that CIMS had been given the benefit of the Proviso to Regulation 2(7) of Ihe Medical Councd of India Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999 and was not required to furnish the bank guarantees because jt was a government institution. No pteading has been made in the writ petltion and no material has also been filed by the petitloner in proof of the fact that the Medlcal Councll of Indla has treated CIMS as a government institution and for this reasn exempted CIMS from furnishing bank guarantee as required by Regulation 2(7) of the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. 11. The J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur may be owned by a society but that soclety is wholly funded by the State Govemment. Hence, while the J.N.M. Medicat College, Raipur is an institution owned and managed by tho Stato Govornmont and is also fully fundod by tho State government, CtMS is an jnstitution established, owned and managed by the Unjversity. As we have seen, CIMS is not a government institution and at best it js an instjtution aided by the State Govemment but not owned and fully funded by the State Government. Hence, CIMS cannot be equated with the J.N.M. Medical Coltege, Raipur, in the matter of fixation of fees for studente admitted to the MBBS course in CIMS. The contention of Mr. Tiwari thai the Unh^ersity and CIMS cannot charge more fees from the students admitted to the MBBS course in CIMS than the l^lll- •N. 16 fees charged from students admitted to the MBBS course in the J.N.M. Modioal Codogo, Raipur, thoroforo, has no merit. 12. Mr. Kanak Tiwari, learned counsel for the petltioner, next submitted thatArticle 12 ofthe Constitution defines "State" forthe purpose of Part III of the Constitution to include not only the Govemment and the Pariiament of India and the Governmont and the