The case, U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences College Welfare Association & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ – C No. – 6828 of 2024), involved a dispute regarding the fee structure for private medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh for the academic session 2024-25. The petitioners, a group of unaided private medical colleges, challenged the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to extend the fee structure of the previous academic session without fresh recommendations from the Fee Regulatory Committee, as required under the Uttar Pradesh Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 (the “Act of 2006”).
Key Legal Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the State Government: Whether the State Government can notify and extend the fee structure without the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee as mandated by the Act of 2006.
2. Legitimacy of the State Governmentโs Notification: The validity and legality of the Government Order dated 11.07.2024, which extended the fee structure from the academic session 2023-24 to 2024-25 without the Fee Regulatory Committee’s input.
3. Maintainability of the Petition: Whether the writ petition, filed by an association of medical colleges along with individual institutions, was maintainable.
Decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, presided by Justice Alok Mathur, delivered a judgment on August 17, 2024, declaring that the State Government acted beyond its jurisdiction by extending the fee structure without the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee. The court noted several key points:
1. Role of the Fee Regulatory Committee: The court emphasized that the Act of 2006 clearly assigns the responsibility of determining fees to the Fee Regulatory Committee. The State Government’s role is limited to notifying the fees determined by the Committee.
2. Violation of Statutory Duties: The court criticized the Fee Regulatory Committee for failing to fulfill its statutory duty of determining the fees for the academic session 2024-25, resulting in the State Governmentโs unlawful issuance of the impugned Government Order.
3. Legitimate Expectation: The court upheld the petitioners’ legitimate expectation that the fees for the academic session 2024-25 would be determined by the Committee in accordance with the law.
4. Maintainability of the Petition: The court rejected the Stateโs preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, affirming that the individual medical colleges, as aggrieved parties, had the standing to seek redress.
5. Court’s Directive: The court quashed the Government Order dated 11.07.2024, directing the Fee Regulatory Committee to determine the fee for the academic session 2024-25 within a specified period. The court also ordered the State Government to ensure timely constitution of the Fee Regulatory Committee in the future to avoid similar legal disputes.
Important Observations:
Justice Alok Mathur made several significant observations, including:
– On Jurisdiction: “The responsibility of determination of fee has been given only to the Fee Regulatory Committee constituted under the said Act.”
– On the State Governmentโs Role: “The State Government does not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned Government order dated 11/07/2024 without there being any recommendations of the Fee Regulatory Committee.”
Also Read
Counsel for the Parties:
– For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Jaideep Narain Mathur, assisted by Sri Amit Jaiswal, Sri S.K. Chaudhary, Sri Mudit Agarwal, Ms. Aishvarya Mathur, and Sri Aditya Singh.
– For Respondents: Sri Rahul Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
