Director, Himalaya Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital and another v. Lalit Mohan Tewari and others

Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, Addl. CSC for the State. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University. Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the private respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since both these appeals arise from common judgment dated 09.07.2018 passed in WP (M/S) No. 3433 of 2016, Lalit Mohan Tiwari and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others (relates to Special Appeal No.596 of 2018) and WP (M/S) No. 3462 of 2016, Prabhat Saini & others v. State of Uttarakhand and others (relates to Special Appeal No. 640 of 2018), they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment. 2

2. The private respondents (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioners”) did file writ petitions against enhanced fees. The petitioners were the students in Private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges located in the State of Uttarakhand. These colleges are under the control of the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University (“University”), which is a State University and which is under the overall supervision and control of the State Government.

3. By a Government Order dated 14.10.2015, the annual tuition fee of BAMS course was enhanced from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 2,15,000/-. Pursuant to it, the University as well as the private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges issued notices for realizing the enhanced fee. The Government Order as well as all such notices was challenged in the writ petitions.

4. By the impugned judgment, the Government Order dated

14.10.2015 and notices dated 10.10.2016, 18.11.2016 as well as demand letter dated 31.05.2017 were quashed and set aside. The Court also held that in future, the Government and the University would always be at liberty to revise this fee, but it must be based on the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee (“FRC”) and it should be prospective.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Government Order dated 14.10.2015 stipulates that in case the FRC determines fee and there is a variation in the fee that is determined by the FRC and the fee determined by the Government Order dated 3

14.10.2015, the appellants shall meet out the difference. He also submits that the petitioners did not deposit any enhanced fee.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fee of the private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges cannot be enhanced by a Government Order; there is an specific Act for the said purpose, namely, the Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) and if any fee is enhanced or revised, it can only be made under the provisions of the 2006 Act. He would submit that the appellants have admitted that it, in fact, they charged the enhanced fee.

8. Learned counsel for the University submits that the University had issued consequential order only pursuant to the Government Order dated 14.10.2015.

9. The 2006 Act makes provision for regulation of admission and determination of fee in professional educational institutions, etc. Section 4 of it makes provision with regard to FRC. It reads as follows:- “4. Composition, Disqualification and functions.—[(1) The State Government shall constitute an Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee comprising:— (a) Retired Judge of High Court nominated by the State Government - Chairman (b) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Medical Education (Ex-Officio) - Member (c) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Technical Education (Ex-Officio) - Member (d) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Law (Ex-Officio) - Member (e) A Retired Government Officer retired from a post not below the rank of Secretary to the State Government nominated by the State Government - Member (f) One Ex-Vice-Chancellor of the State University nominated by the Governor (g) Two Eminent Educationist nominated by the State Government - - Member Member 4 (h) A renowned Chartered Accountant as defined in the rules nominated by the State Government - (i) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Higher Education Member (Ex-Officio) - Member Secretary ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… (12) The Committee shall determine the fees for admission to professional courses of private institutions. (13) Before the commencement of the academic year, it shall be compulsory for every private institution to place before the committee the proposed fee structure of professional courses with all relevant documents and books of accounts for determination of fees. The committee after considering all the documents placed before it, shall determine the fee within one month maximum. In case the proposal for fixation of fee for professional courses is not placed before the committee, the private institution shall not run the course. Therefore the private institution shall not give admission in such course. (14) The fee determined by the committee shall be applicable on the private institution for a period of three years. After the expiry of the period of three years, the institution would be at liberty to apply for revision. The fee so determined shall be applicable to a candidate who is admitted to an institution in that academic year and that fees shall not be revised till the completion of his/her course in the said private institution. ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………”

10. A bare reading of the above provision makes abundantly clear that the fee determination has to be made by FRC based on various factors.

11. In the instant matter, initially, these special appeals were dismissed on 09.10.2018. Thereafter, review petition was filed by the appellants, which was allowed on 27.11.2020.

12. In fact, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has also invited the attention of the Court to 5 the judgment dated 07.09.2017 passed by this Court in Shalini Singh and others v. Union of India and others (SPA No. 214 of 2016), to argue that in identical matter, the Court had left it open to the appellants in that case, to approach the FRC constituted under the 2006 Act and it was left for the FRC to take appropriate decision and to pass orders as it may consider appropriate.

13. Fact remains that in the case of Shalini Singh (supra), the Government Order dated 14.10.2015 was not challenged. There the prayer was that the enhanced fee may not be charged from the petitioners of that case.

14. In the instant case, the challenge has also been made to the Government Order dated 14.10.2015. This Court has to record a finding on this aspect as well.

15. As stated, the 2006 Act makes provisions with regard to fee determination in the specified professional colleges. In the instant case, admittedly before issuance of the Government Order dated

14.10.2015, the FRC did not make any recommendation. Therefore, it was rightly observed that the order of the State Government is unsustainable. Accordingly, there is no force in the special appeals and they deserve to be dismissed.

16. Both the special appeals are dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 03.09.2025 (Ravindra Maithani, J)

03.09.2025 Avneet/