In a significant judgment, Justice Manish Mathur of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, quashed a state government notification dated October 28, 2024, regarding fee fixation for private medical and dental colleges. The court held that the process violated mandatory statutory provisions under the U.P. Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, and directed the Fee Fixation Committee to conduct a fresh determination within two months.
Case Background
The dispute arose when private medical institutions across Uttar Pradesh, including G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Ghaziabad, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, and others, challenged the notification fixing fees for the academic session 2024-25. The petitioners contended that the fees were arbitrarily determined without adhering to statutory requirements outlined under Section 10 of the 2006 Act.
The institutions, represented by Senior Advocate J.N. Mathur, assisted by Mr. Mudit Agarwal, Ms. Aishvarya Mathur, and Mr. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, argued that the Fee Fixation Committee failed to consider the necessary factors prescribed under the law. The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Additional Advocate General V.K. Shahi, assisted by Mr. Rahul Shukla, who defended the notification.
Important Legal Issues
The court addressed the following key issues:
1. Opportunity of Hearing: Whether the Fee Fixation Committee provided the institutions a genuine opportunity to present their case as required under Section 10(2) of the Act.
2. Compliance with Section 10(1): Whether the Fee Fixation Committee considered mandatory factors such as infrastructure, administrative expenses, and reasonable surplus in its decision-making process.
3. Maintainability of Petitions: Whether the petitioners could approach the High Court directly, given the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 11 of the Act.
Observations of the Court
1. On Opportunity of Hearing: The court emphasized that the hearing provided by the Fee Fixation Committee must be meaningful, not perfunctory. Justice Mathur observed:
“Such an opportunity of hearing cannot be an empty formality… Submissions once raised must be addressed by the Committee in the final orders pertaining to fixation of fee.”
2. On Compliance with Section 10(1): The court found that the committee failed to evaluate essential factors such as infrastructure, administrative costs, and reasonable surplus for individual institutions. Instead, it relied solely on a Chartered Accountant’s report.
“The factors enumerated in Section 10(1) of the Act of 2006 are binding upon the Committee… A collective categorization of institutions is not envisaged under the law.”
3. On Maintainability: While acknowledging the existence of an appellate remedy, the court ruled that the petitions were maintainable due to the failure of the Fee Fixation Committee to comply with statutory requirements. Justice Mathur remarked:
“Referring the matter to the appellate authority would be a waste of time and would disrupt the academic progress of students.”
Decision of the Court
The court quashed the October 28, 2024, notification and issued the following directives:
1. The Fee Fixation Committee must redetermine the fees for the academic session 2024-25 in strict compliance with Section 10(1) of the 2006 Act.
2. The process must be completed within two months.
3. Fees already deposited by students would be subject to the new determination.
Justice Mathur underlined the importance of transparency in regulatory decisions, stating:
“Fee fixation cannot be a mere formality. The statutory framework must be respected to ensure fairness and accountability.”
