Aditya University v. The State

Counsel for the Appellant:

1.SR1 VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.S PARINEETA

2.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

3. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 24.03.2025 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dated 06.01.2025 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18563 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed questioning issuance of G.O.Ms.No.l9, Higher Education (CE) Department,

10.07.2024 determining minimum tuition fee to the petitioner university, was disposed of. 7CC3<^n:3 M.^A.3fo.l32 of2025

2. The facts that led to filing of this Writ Appeal, in brief, are that (a) It is the case of the petitioner that since it is a Brownfield University, respondent no.2-Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory & Monitoring Commission (for short, 'APHERMCO, must take note of the income and expenditure and all other relevant factors which are related to the previous existing institutions of the petitioner university. In terms of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory & Monitoring Commission Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act 20 of 2019), respondent no.2 called for certain documents, which accordingly were submitted by the petitioner along with proposed fee structure. Though there was a call from respondent no.2 in the name of personal hearing, the respondent no.2, except collecting the data and documents from the petitioner, did not conduct any personal hearing, despite the fact that Rule 8 of the Rules, 2019 and G.O.Ms.No.l2, dated

04.03.2020, personal hearing should be conducted to decide and regulate the fee structure. Thereafter, the respondent no.2, without providing any personal hearing and without even placing the worksheets so as to enable the petitioner to know where it stands, unilaterally recommended fee respondent no.l to notify. The said act of respondent no.2 is in contravention of the judgments that commission can only regulate the fee but cannot fix the .WA-^0.132 of2025 3 fee in their own. The tuition fee fixed by respondent no.2 at Rs.60,000/- for the block period 2024-27 is lower than the fee fixed to the earlier institution of the same petitioner at Rs.93,700/- for the block period 2024-25. The respondent no.2, even if takes enhancement of salaries of the staff at 12%, the fee fixed earlier should have to be increased, but, conversely, the fee is decreased drastically. This clarifies that respondent no.2 did not act in a proper manner as contemplated under the Act, Rules and Regulations. Since the Government had issued notification after accepting the recommendations of the commission. Section 20 of the Act cannot be made applicable and the petitioner can seek judicial review of the decision. (b) It is further stated that earlier the petitioner filed W.P.No. 14750 of 2024 seeking a direction to respondent no.2-Commission to issue worksheets and the said writ petition was disposed of on 15.07.2024 with a direction to respondent no.2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner dated 08.07.2023. In pursuance thereof, an email was sent to the petitioner on 05.08.2024 vide Lr.No.622/APERMC/ ADMN/2024. In the meanwhile, allotment letters were issued to the petitioner and hence the petitioner cannot defend its case before respondent nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, prayed to direct respondent nos.l and 2 to re-determine the tuition fee of the r .WJlMo.132 of2025 4 petitioner institution and pending disposal of the writ petition, suspend the operation of G.O.Ms.No.19, Higher Education (RM) Department, dated

10.07.2024 to the extent of the petitioner.

3. The respondent no.l filed counter-affidavit denying the material averments of the petition, further contending that for the Greenfield and Brownfield universities, which were established initially, with regard to 35% of the Government quota of seats, the fee recommended is between Rs.50,000/- and Rs.70,000/- for the initial block period and after that in the next block period, the fee for the said quota of seats are further enhanced basing on the financial data provided before the commission. The petitioner being a Brownfield university established afresh, there is no violation of any Rules and Regulations by respondent no.2 in recommending the subsidized/concessional fee for the Government quota of seats earmarked and notified by respondent no.l. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.

4. The respondent no.2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit further contending that respondent no.2, after considering the claims and contentions of the petitioner in the personal hearing that was conducted

15.05.2024, recommended Rs.60,000/- r .^Jl.mi32of202J petitioner institution. The erstwhile petitioner has been collecting the fees as per interim direction dated 02.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32909 of 2022, but the petitioner is bound to receive fee notified by Government vide G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 06.08.2023. In so far as the fee notified under G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 07.07.2024 for the academic year 2024-25 is based on interim order dated 03.07.2024 passed in W.A.No.l82 of 2024, but the petitioner private university cannot receive or collect such fee. Therefore, the fees that was recommended to the petitioner previously cannot be considered at this juncture. Further, the parameters that would have to be considered by respondent no.2 while considering the fees of a private college and private university are different. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the APHERMC had proceeded with determination of the fees, after conducting a detailed personal hearing in due compliance of the Act 20 of 2019, Rules and Regulations made thereunder and after following the principles of natural justice and principles enunciated in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC and after requesting the colleges to submit the requisite information as per the Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder. ^CJ^<RCJ .WAMo.nzofzozs It is further stated in the counter affidavit that respondent no.2 has considered all the documents that are submitted by the petitioner and had arrived a conclusion Rs.60,000/- would be justified for 35% government quota of seats and it would not be burdensome to the students. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same has to be dismissed.

5. The learned single Judge, upon considering the pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, declining to remit back the matter to Regulatory Commission, disposed of the writ petition holding that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief for the present block period.

6. The orders passed in the writ petition are assailed in this writ appeal.

7.Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned senior counsel, for Ms.Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vivekananda Vjrupaksha, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 3.

8. The learned counsel for the parties advanced arguments in tune with their pleadings.

9. The petitioner claims that it being a Brownfield University established provisions Andhra Pradesh Private Universities c '.WX'No.m of2025 (Establishment & Regulation) Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act, 20160 as amended by Act 20 of 2021, the fee fixed for previous institution at Rs.93,700/- for the block period 2024-25 shall be taken into consideration while fixing fee, instead, the Commission fixed fee treating the petitioner as a new entity.

10. Clause (g) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule-2 of Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment) Rules,2017 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.51, dated

23.09.2021 defines "Brownfield University existing College(s)/ Institution(s) Higher Education possesses certain qualifications enumerated therein.

11. Rule 8(3) of the A.P.Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 envisages that the Commission shall be at liberty to approve or alter the proposed fee for each course to be charged by the institution, provided an opportunity of being heard is given to the institution.

12. Vide G.O.Ms.No.51, Higher Education (U.E.) Department, dated

23.09.2021, Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment) Rules,2017 were amended. Rule-11 deals with fee regulation for 35% of seats under the Government Quota. Rule 11(3) envisages that the Regulatory Authority shall be at liberty to review, approve or alter the proposed fee for . r mA.3(o.l32 of2025 8 each course to be charged by the universities, duly giving an opportunity of being heard before determining any fee or fees.

13. The above Rules in unambiguous terms state that the commission shall give an opportunity of being heard to the universities before determining any fee.

14. The material would emanate that vide Letter bearing Lr.No.466/ ADMN/AQPHERMC/2024, dated 08.05.2024, the Member Secretary of the APHERMC, required the petitioner to submit clarifications for the items mentioned in the annexure appended thereto for determination of the fee for various programmes offered by the university and also to attend the personal hearing on 15.05.2024.

15. The communication sent by the petitioner Secretary, APHERMC, dated 08.07.2024 discloses that the petitioner attended the hearing on 15.05.2024 and submitted the details of the expenditure as desired in the letter dated 08.05.2024. The said communication contained a request to the Commission to provide worksheets and given an option of personal hearing, before forwarding recommendations to the Government. M'.’A.%o.l32 of2025 9

16. It is also evident from the material that the petitioner filed writ petition No. 14750 of 2024 seeking a direction to the university to issue worksheets to the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of on

15.07.2024 directing respondent no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner university. In pursuance thereof, respondent no.2 communication petitioner dated

05.08.2024 informing petitioner having established recently a new entity, determination of fees would not arise and hence minimum fees has been recommended. It is further stated in the said communication that the commission had provided a reasonable opportunity to the University to attend personal hearing on 15.05.2024.

17. According petitioner, except collecting data, Commission did not provide any personal hearing on 15.05.2024. As could be seen from the contents of the counter-affidavit so also the communication dated 05.08.2024, except taking a bald plea as to providing an opportunity to attend personal hearing, the commission, did not in clear terms state whether any personal hearing was given to the petitioner university and if so, the tenor of the contentions advanced by the petitioner in that personal hearing 10 .WA.S^o.l32 of2025 and how those contentions were dealt with and the rationale for negating the said contentions raised in that personal hearing.

18. Therefore, non-adherence to the procedure prescribed as per Rule- 8 of the A.P.Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019, before declining to accept the proposed fee to be charged by the institution, is apparent. Thus, there is a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice by the commission in fixing the fee to be charged, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner institution.

19. The learned single Judge misconstrued the purview and purpose of Rule-12 of the Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment) Rules, 2017 and also the purport of the decision in Vasavi Engineering College Parent Association vs. State of Teiangana and others ((2019) 7 SCC 172) , in declining to send the matter back to the Regulatory Commission for redetermination of the issue.

20. Since there is violation of principles of natural justice in not affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner institution before fixing the fee to be charged by the institution as provided under the Rules, this is a fit case to remit back the matter to the Regulatory Commission for '.WX^o.l32of2025 11 deciding the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the institution. Therefore, it is needless to delve into the other aspects.

21. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed, setting aside the orders impugned. Consequently, G.O.Ms.No.l9, Higher Education (RM) Department, dated 10.07.2024 so far as it relates to the petitioner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory &. Monitoring Commission for deciding the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner institution as envisaged in the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. .i Pending miscellaneous i^dtitions, if any, shall stand closed. t //TRUE COPY// Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR \ \ To, SECTION OFFICER Secretariat, TnLrxSi Secretary. Department of Higher Education rullur, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. AND'^lS^ifrrinn ^Tsrd^Flnnr ir? X Tadepalli, Guntur District - 522501. ^ APFf^FT'^9n?4 State Council for Higher Education 50l^fin7fino?1 Admissions.no 11-307, Garudadri KK Towers Flat.no 1, 6th fippr, Lakshmi Narasimha Colony Bypass Road Near Dr YSR 0 Aarogyasri healthcare trust, Mangalagiri, Guntur District-522 503. Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory ^°''®''nment of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block (C-Block) NH-16^ ’

4. One CC to Sri Sri Vijay Mathukumilli Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Smt S Parineeta, SC for APSCHE Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, Advocate [OPUC] ^ [^UT]"^^ 8. Three CD Copies Higher Education High Court of Andhra Pradesh. TF HIGH COURT DATED:24/03/2025 ORDER WA.No.132 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.R., WITHOUT COSTS