Case: M. AAMIRA FATHIMA AND ORS Vs. ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY AND ORS

Annamalai University (hereinafter referred to as "the University") was constituted under the Annamalai University Act, 1928 (Madras Act No. 1 of 1929)1. This Act received the assents of Governor and Governor General on 03.11.1928 and 11.12.1928 respectively and was first published in the Fort of St. George Gazette dated 01.01.1929. The University established Respondent No. 2 College, namely, Rajah Muthiah Medical College in the year 1985.In 1992 the State legislature enacted the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "1992 Act"). Section 2 defined Educational Institution as"educational institution" means any institution by whatever name called, whether managed by any person, private body, local authority, trust or University, carrying on the activity of imparting education leading to a degree or diploma (including a degree or diploma in law, medicine or engineering) conferred by any University established under any law made by the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu and any other educational institution or class or classes of educational institutions (other than any educational institution established by the Central Government or under any law made by Parliament) as the Government may, by notification,4 dealt with Regulation of tuition fee or other fees or deposits and was initially asunder:4. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Government may, by notification, regulate the tuition fee or any other fee or deposit that may be received or collected by any educational institution or class or classes of such educational institutions in respect of any or all class or classes of students:Provided that before issuing a notification under thisthe draft of which shall be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette stating that any objection or suggestion which may be received by the Government, within such period as may be specified therein, shall be considered by them.(2) No educational institution shall receive or collect any fee or accept deposit in excess of the amount notified Under(1).(3) Every educational institution shall issue an official receipt for the fee or deposit received or collected by it.4. After the judgment of this Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors (2003) 6 SCC 697   ,) was added along with an Explanation in Section 4 of 1992 Act by the State Legislature vide Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Amendment Act, 2007. As a result of the aforesaid insertion of) and Explanation, Section 4 of 1992 Act now reads asunder:4. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Government may, by notification, regulate the tuition fee or any other fee or deposit that may be received or collected by any educational institution or class or classes of such educational institutions in respect of any or all class or classes of students:Provided that before issuing a notification under thissubsection, the draft of which shall be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette stating that any objection or suggestion which may be received by the Government, within such period as may be specified therein, shall be considered by them.(2) No educational institution shall receive or collect any fee or accept deposit in excess of the amount notified under) Notwithstanding anything contained inion (2), no educational institution imparting education leading to a degree in medicine or engineering shall receive or collect any fee in excess of the amount fixed by the Committee on fixation of fee constituted by thethe purpose of thisCommittee on fixation of fee means the Committee constituted in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 3.(3) Every educational institution shall issue an official receipt for the fee or deposit received or collected by it.The University, though originally established as a private University had always received contributions and funding from the State Government. But the University never adhered to the statutory provisions or the norms set by the State Government or the University Grants Commission resulting in financial losses during the years1. Under the orders passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu a Special Local Fund Audit Team was appointed which found various irregularities, whereafter by another order dated 14.12.2012 a High Level Committee was constituted to analyze the audit report submitted by the Special Local Fund Audit Team. The events which took place thereafter were summed up by the Single Judge in the instant matters and the relevant observations in paragraphs 17 to 19 are quotedAfter examining the report and the supporting material, this High Level Committee concluded that the Founder had grossly abused the privileges conferred upon him and that despite receiving grants from the State Government to the tune of Rs. 427.98 crores during the period from3, the University had landed up in serious financial crisis. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the Government shall issue necessary directions to the Senate and the Syndicate and also to appoint some person to carry out those directions.18. In pursuance of the aforesaid recommendations, the Government issued a letter dated 7.3.2013 to the Vice Chancellor, to convene the meeting of the Syndicate and Senate, to respond to the report of the Special Local Fund Audit Team. A special meeting of the Senate was held on 13.3.2013 and the meeting of the Syndicate was held on 14.3.2013. The report of the Syndicate showed that by and large, the findings of the Special Local Fund Audit Team were correct. Therefore, the Government issued a directive on 26.3.2013 to convene a special meeting of the Senate and the Syndicate. This was opposed by theby a reply dated 1.4.2013 on the ground that a second meeting will serve no purpose.19. Therefore, the Government, by G.O. Rt. No. 1401, Public Department dated 4.4.2013, appointed an Administrator in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28(4) of the Annamalai University Act, 1928. .......In 2013, the State Legislature enacted the Annamalai University Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "2013 Act") which came into force w.e.f. 25.09.2013 and repealed the Annamalai University Act, 1928.150 students who had taken admission in First MBBS Course in Respondent No. 2 College for the Academic Sessionpreferred Writ Petition No. 20720 of 2014 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras questioning fees of more than Rs. 5.54 lakhs per annum imposed by the University. Similar challenge was raised by students studying in Dental Courses which petitions were heard and dealt with by the High Court along with the main matter. It was urged by the Petitioners that the fees fixed in Government Colleges in the State were Rs. 12,290/for MBBS Course and Rs. 10,290/for BDS Course; that the Committee on Fixation of Fee constituted in terms of 1992 Act had fixed the tuition fees for MBBS Course at Rs. 2.30 lakhs for twocolleges, Rs. 2.60 lakhs for onecollege and Rs. 2.80 for othercolleges and that in so far as ESI Medical Colleges were concerned, it had fixed the tuition fees at Rs.Highlighting the enormous difference between the fees charged by the University on one hand and the scale fixed by the Government as well as the Committee on Fixation of Fee on the other, it was prayed that the matter for fixation of fee be referred to the Committee in terms of 1992 Act.While opposing the aforesaid submissions, it was contended on behalf of the University that the fees stipulated by the University were in terms of its statutes and the provisions of 2013 Act: that the object of 1992 Act was to curtail the menace ofcolleges imposing high fees and that the Government Colleges and State Universities did not come within the purview of 1992 Act: that presently the University was running in deficit and if the fee structure was reduced it would put the financial condition of the University in great jeopardy.The Single Judge of the High Court by his common judgment and Order dated 02.12.2014 dismissed the challenge raised by the Petitioners. It was observed that the Petitioners having been admitted to MBBS and BDS Courses in pursuance of the prospectus for the yearwere bound by the terms and conditions contained therein and were therefore estopped from raising any challenge. Reliance in that behalf was placed on the decision of this Court in Cochin University of Science and Technology and Anr. v. Thomas P. John and Ors (2008) 8 SCC 82 .   The Single Judge then proceeded to consider whether the provisions of 1992 Act would apply and get attracted in the present case. After considering the definition of Educational Institution Under Section 2(e) of 1992 Act, he observed that for the purposes of application of the provisions of 1992 Act, the concerned Institution must have been notified by the State Government under the said 1992 Act. It was further observed that the University was initially established indays and merely because the earlier Act was repealed and replaced by 2013 Act, the first limb of Section 2(b) would not apply without the State Government referring the University to the Fee Fixation Committee.The correctness of the decision of the Single Judge was questioned by the students by filing Writ Appeal Nos. 1637 and 1638 of 2014. Writ Petition Nos. 6909, 6910, 12515, 27098 and 31848 of 2015 and 14562, 22911 and 26388 of 2016 preferred by some of the students were also heard along with said writ appeals by the Division Bench of the High Court. By its common judgment and order dated 26.09.2016 the Division Bench rejected the challenge and dismissed the appeals. The Division Bench affirmed the reasoning which weighed with the Single Judge. It went on to observe that the University was empowered under 2013 Act to fix, demand and receive such fees as were prescribed.These appeals by special leave question the correctness of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court.In the present case the Single Judge considered the definition of Educational Institution as appearing in Section 2(e) of 1992 Act and came to the conclusion that for the purposes of application of the provisions of 1992 Act the concerned institution ought to have been notified by the State Government and an appropriate reference must be made to the Fee Fixation Committee. This reasoning has been affirmed by the Division Bench.

Court's reasoning:
The aforesaid analysis thus conclusively establishes that in so far as cases covered under (I) Part are concerned, no specification by the Government is required or necessary. If the concerned activity leads to award of degree or diploma by any University established under any law made by the State Legislature, such institution shall be "educational institution" within the meaning of provisions of Section 2(b). The specification by notification is aonly if the institution concerned is otherwise not covered under (I) Part. The High Court was completely in error in observing that for the application by the provisions of 1992 Act an educational institution must always be specified by the Government by notification. In our view, the requirement of specification of notification is only in respect of "any other educational institution or class or classes of educational institutions" and has not to be read with (I) part of definition, which part of the definition is an independent and stand alone provision and does not require any specification by the Government.On Question 4, our conclusion, therefore, is that the judgment in Islamic Academy insofar as it evolves the scheme of the two Committees, one each for admission and fee structure, does not go beyond the law laid down in Pai Foundation and earlier decisions of this Court, which have been approved in that case. The challenge to setting up of the two Committees in accordance with the decision in Islamic Academy therefore, fails.But the situation in the present matter stands on a slightly different footing inasmuch as by inserting) along with an explanation in Section 4 in 1992 Act, Fee Fixation Committee is a statutory mechanism in terms of said provisionsof 1992 Act.Said Section 4 shows that under(1) the Government is empowered to regulate the tuition fee or any other fees or deposits in the manner prescribed therein. But in relation to imparting of education leading to a degree in medicine or engineering,) has been given an overriding effect by incorporating, unlike(1), does not require any notification by the Government. If an institution carries on activity of imparting education leading to a degree or diploma as spoken of in) of said Section 4, the fee structure has to be that which is fixed by the Committee. The legislative intent is very clear and no educational institution which comes within the scope of) can receive or collect any fees in excess of the amount fixed by the "Committee on Fixation ofUniversity by its very nature of activities would be running numerous courses and to that extent provisions of 2013 Act are general in nature. The provisions of Sectionof 1992 Act are specific and special and apply to courses leading to degrees in Medicine and Engineering. Therefore, insofar as professional courses leading to degrees in Medicine and Engineering are concerned, the matter must be screened and assessed by Committee on Fixation of Fee and the submission that the University was entitled to fix fees on its own without the intervention of such Committee has to be rejected. The other submission that the students were estopped from raising a challenge must also fail. If a particular modality is prescribed by the Legislature any action in defiance or ignorance of such modality cannot be protected or preserved on the plea of estoppel. The reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Cochin University of Science and Technology (supra) was also misplaced. In that case students who had taken admission in NRI Quota, thereafter contended that their fee structure be slashed to the same level as applicable to non NRI students. The concept of estoppel was pressed into service while rejecting said submission but that cannot be a ground to deny the express protection available under a legislation.