High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 29 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3485 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ghaziabad Parents Association Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Mishra,Prateek Rai,Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra (Sr. Advocate),V.C Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,Lal Dev,Rahul Agarwal,Ratnesh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Sri Prateek Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lal Dev for respondent No.6, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ratnesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.7, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal for respondent No.4. This Writ (PIL) has been filed by an Association of Parents registered with the objective of protection of the interests of parents and their wards against arbitrary and unlawful action of schools and colleges which may include levy of exorbitant fee, levy of capitation fee, profiteering etc. It is alleged that the colleges arrayed as respondents No. 3 to 7 affiliated with Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, are charging fee in excess to the fee prescribed by the university by invoking powers under Section 51 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The colleges cannot charge any fee beyond the fee prescribed by the university under different heads. Accordingly the following reliefs have been sought:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent(s) to ensure the educational institutions, running self financed BBA/BCA courses in affiliation with the Chaudhary Charan Singh Meerut University, charge fee strictly in accordance with the fee structure determined by the University for the purpose of such courses and to cancel the affiliation of such educational institutions which fail to comply; 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent(s) to ensure the fee realized from students by educational institutions, running self financed BBA/BCA courses affiliation with the Chaudhary Charan Singh Meerut University, in contravention of the fee structure determined by the University for the purpose of such courses is refunded to students who come forward claim the same; 3. Issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper given the facts and circumstances of the case;
Decision
4. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. This Court while entertaining the writ (PIL) vide order dated 8.5.2018 had issued notices to respondents No. 3 to 7 requiring them to file counter affidavit. Pursuant to the Notices issued the pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ (PIL) is being decided finally. It is the specific case of the petitioner that almost all private educational institutions operating in the State of U.P. including in the district of Ghaziabad, in affiliation with the Chaudhary Charan Singh Meerut University are charging exorbitant amount of fees from students for self-financed BBA/BCA courses in complete violation of statutory norms. It is alleged that these private educational institutes are operating as businesses and indulging in profiteering. The respondents No. 3 to 7 have been impleaded only to illustrate the larger festering problem. The Apex Court has time and again held that educational activity is essentially charitable in nature and commercialization or profiteering through it is impermissible. Section 21(1)(xvii) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 confers power upon the Executive Council of the University the power to regulate and determine all other matters concerning the university as well as Institutes, constituent affiliated and associated colleges which includes the power to regulate the fee structure. The educational institutions running the self- financed BBA/BCA courses in affiliation with the university can charge only such amount of fee from the students as is prescribed by the university by way of an Ordinance under Section 51(2)(i) of the Act. It is alleged that the Executive Council of the University in exercise of powers under Section 21(1)(xii) of the Act, 1973 has prescribed an annual fee to the tune of Rs.21,340/- in respect of the self-financed BBA/BCA courses run by the institutions affiliated with the university but the institutes including respondents No. 3 to 7 are charging annual fee much above the amount prescribed by the university. In para 23 of the writ petition it is alleged that ITS, Ghaziabad charges an annual fee of Rs. 68,100/- and Rs.58,100/- for the self-financed BBA and BCA courses. IMS, Noida charges Rs.99,750/- for the said courses while Inmantec, Ghaziabad charges an amount of Rs.51,000/- for the BBA/BCA courses run by it. It is also stated that this Court in Writ-C No. 34914 of 2015 (Akshay Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and another) had issued directions to respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.6.2015 to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The said order was not complied with and a Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 5825 of 2015 was filed whereafter the Registrar of the university disposed of the representation observing that since the complaint itself had been withdrawn, no orders is required to be passed. However, while passing the order the Registrar acknowledged the fact that many educational institutions running self-financed BBA/BCA courses in affiliation to the university were charging fee in excess of what was prescribed. Despite acknowledging such fact the university did not take any action either punitive or preventive. The inaction on the part of the university despite overwhelming evidence that more than one institutions are charging fee more than the fee prescribed by the university amounts to encouraging profiteering by such institutions at the expense of hapless students and their parents. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 university sworn by the Senior Superintendent of the university. In the counter affidavit in Para-6 it has been clearly stated that the university has prescribed a fixed schedule of fees for different courses to be charged by the affiliated colleges and in case it is found that any affiliated college is charging exorbitant amount of fee from the students, the same is liable to be enquired and if found guilty suitable action in accordance with law would be initiated. It is also stated that the university has always been diligent in keeping a supervisory check over the affiliated institutions. It has also constituted a three member committee comprising of the Dean Students' Welfare, HOD, Russian languages and a Professor of Department of Botany to look into the matter and submit report before the Vice Chancellor in respect of the allegations leveled in the PIL. This Court vide its order dated 19.11.2019 issued the directions to the university to examine all contents of the PIL and arrive at a definite conclusion in that regard within a period of four weeks and place the findings on record. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent University pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.11.2019 whereby an interim report prepared by a four member committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor has been brought on record. The four member committee made surprise visits to all the five respondent institutes/colleges and recorded their comments in respect of each of the institutes/colleges. In the interim report so submitted the university has acknowledged the fact that by and large the affiliated colleges have taken refuge of a letter number PA/9329 dated 11.9.2017 issued by the university to charge fee over and above the prescribed fee. The letter undoubtedly had given the self-financed colleges a certain amount of space to charge fee for the value added services i.e. providing laptops, imparting training and placement services, hostel, language courses, certificate related specific courses, workshops etc. The interim report further records that the respondent colleges in the garb of the space given to them to collect fee for so called "value added services" have collected fees which is many fold more than the basic fee prescribed by the university. The respondents were expected to exhibit high level of transparency while charging the said fee and were expected to provide a proper breakup of the fee so charged. The respondent colleges have also not bothered to inform the university about the parameters on which the fee towards such "value added services" was charged. The committee has opined that the option granted to the self-financed colleges in the letter No. PA/9329 dated 11.9.2017 has been misused by the self-financed colleges/institutions. The committee has recommended the following:- "1. As the self financed colleges have, to an extent, misused the option granted to vide University Letter No.P.A./9329 dated 11-09-2017 to charge reasonable fees on account of additional facilities (laptop, hostel, placement etc and value additional (extra facilities on languages, certificates, related to the specific courses, workshops etc.) to the effect of Note on the second page of the aforementioned letter be stayed. 2. As a detailed and in depth of the fees charged by the respondent colleges vis-a- vis the quality of imparted education by them is to be enhanced, further time may be gratned to the colleges to do the same. 3. The details of money charge (in whatever name) by every attached self financed or Govt. Aided colleges, imparting BBA or BCA course, need to examined to ensure that none of the attached colleges has been charging any fees over and above the fees prescribed by the University." A counter affidavit in response to the Writ (PIL) has been filed by respondent No.4 (i.e. Institute of Management Studies, Noida) annexing the office order dated 11.9.2017 issued by the Registrar, Chaudhary Charan Singh Meerut University, Meerut. The counsel for respondent No.4 has invited the attention of the Court to the note appearing at the bottom of the schedule which provides that for additional facilities (laptop, hostel, placement etc.) and value additional (extra facilities on languages, certificates, related to the specific courses, workshops), the colleges may charge reasonable fees against receipt. In para 3(d) of the counter affidavit it is stated that respondent No.4 does not charge any amount in violation of the office order dated 11.9.2017. The respondent No.4 charges only the amount mentioned against the heads specified in the office order dated 11.9.2017 and takes the amount of Rs.37,500/- only under the heads outlined under the office order dated 11.9.2017. In respect of other facilities and value added facilities the respondent No.4 charges an amount of Rs.47,250/- from the Ist year students and an amount of Rs.64,250/- from the 2nd and 3rd year students undergoing BBA/BCA courses. The respondent No.4 has also annexed along with the counter affidavit a detailed chart of various industrial visits, guest lectures, seminars/ workshops, academic club activities, value additive offerings, learning aids, e-study material, language courses, environmentships and placements organized by respondent No.4. It is thus argued that the fee schedule prescribed by the university in its office order dated 11.9.2017 is restricted to the bare minimum that an institution can charge from its students for providing learning instructions realizing that different institutions offer different facilities and provide different avenues for the students to develop their personalities, the university itself recognized that it is not possible for it to provide any fixed quantum of fee for these activities. The university left it open to the institutions to charge adequate fee and provide facilities and extra offering to their students. In the rejoinder the petitioner has rebutted the stand taken by the University and it has been submitted that the university by issuing the office order dated 11.9.2017 and appending a note that for additional facilities and value addition, the colleges may charge reasonable fee against receipt has opened a flood gate for the colleges to charge arbitrary fee in the name of "additional facilities and value addition". The note permits the colleges to charge reasonable fees against receipts, no parameters of reasonableness have been laid down and no audit mechanism has been provided to hold the colleges accountable for charging exorbitant fee. It is also stated that under law the colleges could only charge such fee as prescribed by means of an ordinance. In the absence of an ordinance permitting the colleges to charge fee for additional facilities and value addition, the university is not justified to permit the colleges to continue to charge fee under the office order dated 11.9.2017 over and above the prescribed amount particularly in view of the fact that the office order dated 11.9.2017 is itself not in consonance with law. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record, we find that the respondent university pursuant to the directions of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2019 constituted a four member committee to look into the matter and has submitted an interim report dated 17.12.2019 recommending certain action to be taken. The interim report was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University and it was directed to be placed before the Executive Council of the University. The committee however had sought some further time to thoroughly examine the voluminous records submitted by the colleges/affiliated institutions and submit its final report. The Court is of the opinion that the Writ (PIL) has served its purpose. However, the Court finds that the final report has yet not been tabled before the Executive Council of the University. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ (PIL) by expecting the four member committee to submit its final report within a period of six months from today before the Executive Council of the University. The Executive Council on the receipt of the final report is expected to take a decision based on the final report within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the final report. A copy of the final report as also the decision of the Executive Council shall be forwarded to this Court to be kept on record. The Writ (PIL) stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Order Date :- 23.3.2022 Vandana Digitally signed by VANDANA GAUTAM Date: 2022.07.18 17:22:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad