HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh and S/Sri M.K. Dubey and S.K. Srivastava, learned advocates for petitioners and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by S/Sri Suresh Singh and D.K. Singh, Additional C.S.C., Sri Anubhav Singh, learned counsel for intervention - applicant in Writ A No. 24988/2025 and Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned counsel for Director General of Medical Education, Lucknow in all writ petitions.

2. Petitioners before this Court are medical students of G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Pilakhuwa, Hapur and they are aggrieved by increase of education fee in mid-term of academic session as well as that allegedly being contrary to provisions of U.P. Private Professional Education Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act,

3. Learned advocates for petitioners submit that fixation of fee is also contrary to judgments of Supreme Court and time-table prescribed for such enhancement, if any.

4. Learned AAG appearing for State submits that orders for enhancement of fee was passed in pursuance of a judgment passed by Coordinate 2 WRIC No. 24988 of 2025 Bench at Lucknow in U.P. Unaided Medical and Allied Sciences College Welfare Association and 17 others vs. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education, Anubhag-4 Lko and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:56355 of which relevant paragraph 56 is quoted below :- "56. Writ petition is allowed with the following directions: - a. The Fee Regulatory Committee shall proceed fix the fee for academic session 2024-25 in respect of the Institutions before this Court, in accordance with law. b. The petitioner Institutions are required to submit all the documents and the proposal, if not already done, within one week from today i.e by 24.8.2024. c. The Committee shall determine the fee for the academic session 2024-25 within 4 weeks thereafter i.e by 21.09.2024, it shall be open for the Committee to consider the request of the petitioner Institutions for enhancement of the fee in proportion to the rate of inflation on the fee determined for academic session 2021-22 as provided for in the order of this Court dated 14/08/2024. d. At the time of counselling the students will be informed about the fees determined for academic session 2023-24, which would be the provisional fee subject to the final fee determined by the Committee. e. Upon enhancement, the arrears would be payable by the students in instalments (half yearly/quarterly) depending upon the hike recommended by the Committee, which shall also determine the number of instalments to be paid by the students. f. This Court while interpreting the provisions of the Act of 2006 in the case of Indian Institute of Management and Engineering Society and Another, 2016 SCC Online All 3451 had clearly stated that the Committee in future has to discharge its statutory function in determination of fee well in advance, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy (supra) had stated that the fee shall be determine 6 months in advance and despite the said directions the Committee has not determined the fee for the academic session 2024-25, despite the fact that the counselling is about to commence, which clearly amounts to defiance of the orders of this Court and hence they are 3 WRIC No. 24988 of 2025 liable to be proceeded for contempt, but after due consideration this Court is of the view that the end of justice in the present case would be met by directing the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to conduct an enquiry against the persons responsible for delay in constitution of the Fee Fixation Committee and also with regard to the failure of the Committee to make determination of fee as mandated by the Act of 2006. Let the enquiry be concluded within a period of 2 months, and a copy shall be forwarded to this Court through its Senior Registrar. We again caution the State Government as well as the Fee Fixation Committee to proceed to determine the fee well in advance for the next session failing which they shall be liable to be proceeded in contempt."

5. On basis of aforesaid directions, Fee Fixation Committee has enhanced tution fee for 5 colleges. So far as remaining colleges are concerned, only hostel fee and misc. fees of concerned medical college was enhanced.

6. Learned advocates for petitioners are not aggrieved by said enhancement since petitioners-students have already paid the same.

7. Subsequently, in another round of litigation, on basis of representation filed by colleges, another order was passed by Coordinate Bench at Lucknow in G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Ghaziabad vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC-LKO:1935 wherein after giving answers to questions framed, following directions were made :- "40. In the present case, it is the unaided private institutions who have approached this Court with specific plea that mandatory provisions enumerated under Section 10 of the Act of 2006 have not been considered by the Fee Fixation Committee.

41. As noticed herein above, this Court has found favour with the aforesaid submission.

42. In view thereof, there is no disputed questions of fact involved in the present writ petition since even as per perusal of the Minutes of Meetings of the Fee fixation Committee, mandatory factors enumerated under Section 10(1) of the Act of 2006 have been ignored by the Fee Fixation Committee, which alone is the authority to determine fee.

43. So far as objections regarding improper authorization is concerned in 4 WRIC No. 24988 of 2025 WRIT - C No. - 10329 of 2024, a supplementary affidavit has subsequently been filed bringing in record the proper authorization for petitioners to file this Petition on behalf of the Institution. The said preliminary objection therefore now does not require to be decided.

44. In view of aforesaid and as has been held herein above, the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of above petitions is hereby rejected. The petitions therefore are held to be maintainable.

45. Considering aforesaid discussion, impugned notification dated

28.10.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite party No.2 as folllows:- (a) to re-visit the aspects of fee determination for the relevant courses for the academic year 2024-25 strictly in accordance with provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act of 2006. (b) since considerable time has elapsed, the Fee Fixation Committee is directed to take a decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said committee. (c) Fee deposit made by the students in terms of the impugned determination will abide by outcome of fresh determination so made.

46. The above petitions therefore stand allowed in terms of aforesaid directions. Parties to bear their own cost."

8. In pursuance of above order, now impugned order has been passed whereby tution fee of various colleges were increased. So far as institution in question is concerned, there is an enhancement of around Rs. 2,50,000/- towards tution fee and overall enhancement is of about Rs. 4,71,000/- including hostel and misc. fees.

9. I have considered submissions of rival parties and perused the records.

10. As referred above, impugned orders are passed on basis of directions passed by Coordinate Bench sitting at Lucknow which were never 5 WRIC No. 24988 of 2025 challenged at behest of petitioners as well as they have never tried to become party, therefore, in order to consider submission of learned advocates for petitioners, Court has to scrutinize orders passed by Coordinate Benches which cannot be done while sitting as a coordinate Bench in Writ jurisdiction since it would be akin to hear the challenge of order passed by a coordinate Bench which is impermissible in law, therefore, all writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to petitioners who were not party before learned Single Judge at Lucknow to either file review application or to take any other remedy available in order to show that exercise undertaken by respondents was contrary to above referred Act of 2006 and judgment passed by Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537.

11. So far as Intervention Application is concerned, no order is required to pass. October 9, 2025 N. Sinha (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh and S/Sri M.K. Dubey and S.K. Srivastava, learned advocates for petitioners and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by S/Sri Suresh Singh and D.K. Singh, Additional C.S.C., Sri Anubhav Singh, learned counsel for intervention - applicant in Writ A No. 24988/2025 and Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned counsel for Director General of Medical Education, Lucknow in all writ petitions.

2. Petitioners before this Court are medical students of G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Pilakhuwa, Hapur and they are aggrieved by increase of education fee in mid-term of academic session as well as that allegedly being contrary to provisions of U.P. Private Professional Education Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act,

3. Learned advocates for petitioners submit that fixation of fee is also contrary to judgments of Supreme Court and time-table prescribed for such enhancement, if any.

4. Learned AAG appearing for State submits that orders for enhancement of fee was passed in pursuance of a judgment passed by Coordinate 2 WRIC No. 24988 of 2025 Bench at Lucknow in U.P. Unaided Medical and Allied Sciences College Welfare Association and 17 others vs. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education, Anubhag-4 Lko and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:56355 of which relevant paragraph 56 is quoted below :- "56. Writ petition is allowed with the following directions: - a. The Fee Regulatory Committee shall proceed fix the fee for academic session 2024-25 in respect of the Institutions before this Court, in accordance with law. b. The petitioner Institutions are required to submit all the documents and the proposal, if not already done, within one week from today i.e by 24.8.2024. c. The Committee shall determine the fee for the academic session 2024-25 within 4 weeks thereafter i.e by 21.09.2024, it shall be open for the Committee to consider the request of the petitioner Institutions for enhancement of the fee in proportion to the rate of inflation on the fee determined for academic session 2021-22 as provided for in the order of this Court dated 14/08/2024. d. At the time of counselling the students will be informed about the fees determined for academic session 2023-24, which would be the provisional fee subject to the final fee determined by the Committee. e. Upon enhancement, the arrears would be payable by the students in instalments (half yearly/quarterly) depending upon the hike recommended by the Committee, which shall also determine the number of instalments to be paid by the students. f. This Court while interpreting the provisions of the Act of 2006 in the case of Indian Institute of Management and Engineering Society and Another, 2016 SCC Online All 3451 had clearly stated that the Committee in future has to discharge its statutory function in determination of fee well in advance, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy (supra) had stated that the fee shall be determine 6 months in advance and despite the said directions the Committee has not determined the fee for the academic session 2024-25, despite the fact that the counselling is about to commence, which clearly amounts to defiance of the orders of this Court and hence they are 3 WRIC No. 24988 of 2025 liable to be proceeded for contempt, but after due consideration this Court is of the view that the end of justice in the present case would be met by directing the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to conduct an enquiry against the persons responsible for delay in constitution of the Fee Fixation Committee and also with regard to the failure of the Committee to make determination of fee as mandated by the Act of 2006. Let the enquiry be concluded within a period of 2 months, and a copy shall be forwarded to this Court through its Senior Registrar. We again caution the State Government as well as the Fee Fixation Committee to proceed to determine the fee well in advance for the next session failing which they shall be liable to be proceeded in contempt."

5. On basis of aforesaid directions, Fee Fixation Committee has enhanced tution fee for 5 colleges. So far as remaining colleges are concerned, only hostel fee and misc. fees of concerned medical college was enhanced.

6. Learned advocates for petitioners are not aggrieved by said enhancement since petitioners-students have already paid the same.

7. Subsequently, in another round of litigation, on basis of representation filed by colleges, another order was passed by Coordinate Bench at Lucknow in G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Ghaziabad vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC-LKO:1935 wherein after giving answers to questions framed, following directions were made :- "40. In the present case, it is the unaided private institutions who have approached this Court with specific plea that mandatory provisions enumerated under Section 10 of the Act of 2006 have not been considered by the Fee Fixation Committee.

41. As noticed herein above, this Court has found favour with the aforesaid submission.

42. In view thereof, there is no disputed questions of fact involved in the present writ petition since even as per perusal of the Minutes of Meetings of the Fee fixation Committee, mandatory factors enumerated under Section 10(1) of the Act of 2006 have been ignored by the Fee Fixation Committee, which alone is the authority to determine fee.

43. So far as objections regarding improper authorization is concerned in 4 WRIC No. 24988 of 2025 WRIT - C No. - 10329 of 2024, a supplementary affidavit has subsequently been filed bringing in record the proper authorization for petitioners to file this Petition on behalf of the Institution. The said preliminary objection therefore now does not require to be decided.

44. In view of aforesaid and as has been held herein above, the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of above petitions is hereby rejected. The petitions therefore are held to be maintainable.

45. Considering aforesaid discussion, impugned notification dated

28.10.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite party No.2 as folllows:- (a) to re-visit the aspects of fee determination for the relevant courses for the academic year 2024-25 strictly in accordance with provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act of 2006. (b) since considerable time has elapsed, the Fee Fixation Committee is directed to take a decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said committee. (c) Fee deposit made by the students in terms of the impugned determination will abide by outcome of fresh determination so made.

46. The above petitions therefore stand allowed in terms of aforesaid directions. Parties to bear their own cost."

8. In pursuance of above order, now impugned order has been passed whereby tution fee of various colleges were increased. So far as institution in question is concerned, there is an enhancement of around Rs. 2,50,000/- towards tution fee and overall enhancement is of about Rs. 4,71,000/- including hostel and misc. fees.

9. I have considered submissions of rival parties and perused the records.

10. As referred above, impugned orders are passed on basis of directions passed by Coordinate Bench sitting at Lucknow which were never 5 WRIC No. 24988 of 2025 challenged at behest of petitioners as well as they have never tried to become party, therefore, in order to consider submission of learned advocates for petitioners, Court has to scrutinize orders passed by Coordinate Benches which cannot be done while sitting as a coordinate Bench in Writ jurisdiction since it would be akin to hear the challenge of order passed by a coordinate Bench which is impermissible in law, therefore, all writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to petitioners who were not party before learned Single Judge at Lucknow to either file review application or to take any other remedy available in order to show that exercise undertaken by respondents was contrary to above referred Act of 2006 and judgment passed by Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537.

11. So far as Intervention Application is concerned, no order is required to pass. October 9, 2025 N. Sinha (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad