LUCKNOW vs Rama Medical College, Hospital And Research

the appellant that the students were not a party in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. They had no knowledge of the proceedings nor of the final order/judgement passed therein. When the fee was hiked by the respondent-Institution, they filed a writ petition before this Court at Allahabad in which it was opined that a Single Judge bench of this very Court at Lucknow had passed an order, therefore, the petitioners before it should either seek a review or challenge the said judgement. It is only then that this appeal has been preferred.

4. On being confronted, the counsel for the respondent no.1 fairly 2 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 submitted that he has no objection, if the delay is condoned, but he has certain other objections.

5. In view of the above, the delay in filing the appeal is found to have been sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. Order on Application for Leave to Appeal

6. On the question of leave to appeal, we find that the appellants being students, who would ultimately pay the fee, as determined in pursuance to the judgement of the writ Court and they not having been heard nor made parties in the writ petition are entitled to be heard in this intra court appeal, a fact which the counsel for the respondent no.1 could not deny.

7. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is allowed.

8. Let a regular number be allotted to the appeal. Order on Special Appeal

9. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, we cannot sustain part of the finding of the writ Court with regard to question no. (d) which was framed by it as under:- “(d) Whether petition would be maintainable in view of appellate remedy available to petitioners in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 2006?”

10. The reasoning in part, i.e., insofar as it says- "there does not appear to be any power conferred upon the appellate authority to determine the fee structure afresh, which appears to be in the sole domain of the Committee constituted in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 2006" and similar observations in para 35 of the impugned judgement. No doubt, the initial 3 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 prerogative is that if the fee fixation committee under Section 4 to determine the fee structure and in doing so, it has to take into account the parameters mentioned in Section 10 of the U.P. Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, but then against such decision of such Committee determining the fee aforesaid, an appeal is prescribed under Section 11 which reads as under:- “11. The State Government shall appoint an Appellate Authority, headed by a person who has been a Judge of the High Court before which a person or professional institution aggrieved by an order of the Committee may file an appeal, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such an order.”

11. Though the powers of the appellate authority have not been defined on first principle, the appellate authority will have all the powers which the original authority fixing the fee has, unless any exception has been made out by prescribing specific powers to the appellate authority which is not the case herein. We do not find any factual or legal basis for the aforesaid observations of the learned Single Judge. After all, if the fixation of fee by the Committee aforesaid is to be challenged in this appeal, then two course of actions are open for the appellate authority- (i) to find out as to whether the fixation is erroneous, such as, on the ground of non consideration of provision of Section 10; and remand the matter back to the fee fixation committee or (ii) in a given fact situation, if it has the relevant material before it and is of the opinion that the same has not been taken into consideration in the light of Section 10, to determine it. We do not find any embargo in this regard in exercise of power by the appellate authority. In a given case, the latter course of action may save time, unless there are good reasons to remand the matter back to the fee 4 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 fixation committee.

12. We, therefore, set aside the aforesaid observations/findings of the learned Single Judge, but sustain the other findings with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in spite of availability of statutory remedy under Section 11 of the Act, 2006, as we find that the learned Single Judge has not entered into disputed questions of fact but has only considered firstly, as to whether the institutions were heard before a decision was taken as impugned before it by the fee fixation committee; whether it was effective herein keeping in view the principles of natural justice; whether an inquiry was conducted in terms of the earlier judgement passed in the case or not; and whether the parameters mentioned in Section 10 of the Act, 2006 were followed or not. No doubt, statutory remedy, wherever available, should be availed, but in given circumstances, the writ Court may for good and sufficient reasons, as in this case, entertain a writ petition in spite of it, especially where disputed questions of fact are not required to be adjudicated by it, therefore, we do not find any fault in this regard, subject however to what has been observed herein.

13. As regards the other issues also, we do not find any error in the judgement of the writ Court. The appellants before us are students. The reason why we have allowed their leave to appeal is that they had taken admission in the institution on the basis of the fee proposed by the institution during counselling held in between 9.8.2024 to 5.9.2024. The fee, as disclosed during counselling, was notified by the State Government on 11.7.2024 in terms of the decision taken by the Government under Section 4 of the Act, 2006. The said decision of the 5 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 State Government fixing the fee was challenged by the Association of Medical College by means of writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 6828 of 2024 which was allowed on 17.08.2024. In pursuance thereof, fresh decision was taken by the fee fixation committee in purported exercise of power under Section 4 of the Act, 2006 which was notified by the State Government on 28.10.2024. In pursuance to the judgment, the respondent no.1-Institution demanded the enhanced fee from the students, which was paid by the appellants herein. Thereafter the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No.10660 of 2024 challenging the aforesaid decision regarding fee fixation, which was allowed along with other similar writ petitions by means of the judgment impugned, as discussed herein-above. The submission of the counsel for the appellants is that initially the proposed provisional fee was notified and was made aware to the students who participated in the counselling, knowing that the fee could be enhanced and it was subsequently enhanced, which was accepted by the students. The students were not at all prepared for a situation where the fee would again be revised and enhanced further. The initial enhancement was about Rs. 31,000/- and now, it has been enhanced further by 2.50 lakhs which is cumbersome for the students. All this has happened because of re-fixation of the fee in compliance of the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2025, as the fee fixation committee determined the fee again on 05.07.2025 which was challenged by the respondent no.1- Institution and other institutions and had been quashed. The aforesaid decision of the Committee/State Government re-fixing the fee was challenged by the parents before this Court at Allahabad by means of Writ- C No.24355 of 2025, wherein initially an interim order was passed which was favourable to the appellants herein, but ultimately the writ 6 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 petition was disposed of with the observation that as a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court at Lucknow had passed the judgment which is impugned herein, therefore, the petitioner should either file a review application or an appeal. Therefore, this appeal has been filed.

14. In this scenario, we are of the opinion, especially in view of the language contained in Section 4 of the Act, 2006 as essentially it appears that quantum of fee is an issue which is being raised by the appellants and in this connection, certain issues are sought to be raised, such as, the application of re-determination of fee retrospectively to the admissions already taken and also with regard to Section 10 of the Act, 2006, we are of the opinion that the judgment in question will not come in the way of the appellants, if they challenge the decision taken in pursuance thereof in statutory appeal under Section 11. To protect the interest of the appellants herein who are students, it can further be provided that the interim relief application, if any, moved by the appellants would also be considered by the appellate authority and decided within three weeks from filing of the appeal, as we do not find any embargo in the Act, 2006 in consideration of such interim relief.

15. To facilitate the aforesaid exercise, the fee fixation committee shall provide a copy of the minutes or decision by which the fee fixation may have been determined or recommended, as the case may be, within three days of the submission of an application in this regard before the committee by the appellants or anyone.

16. Although a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of an order determining the fee under Section 4 of the Act, 2006 is prescribed as limitation for filing the appeal, but considering the fact that the said 7 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 fixation was never provided to the appellants-students, in fact, the minutes of the committee have not been provided till date; secondly, they have been litigating before this Court at Allahabad and now, in this appeal, we are of the opinion that if any such appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the same would be considered and would not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

17. Shri Ambrish Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 very fairly undertakes that if the appellants’ counsel informs him telephonically or in writing, as the case may be, about the date fixed in the appeal, he will appear on behalf of respondent no.1 without raising any such objection regarding service of notice which may be issued by the appellate authority through Whatsapp message or any other electronic means, irrespective of the aforesaid.

18. Only for a period of six weeks, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent no.1-Institution against the appellants-students based on the deposit or non-deposit of fee as demanded by it in pursuance to the decision dated 05.07.2025.

19. Shri V.P. Nag, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate our order to the Appellate Authority and the fee fixation committee for compliance.

20. The appeal of the appellants shall be considered and decided as per law, but with expedition.

21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) November 25, 2025 Shravan 8 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the appellant that the students were not a party in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. They had no knowledge of the proceedings nor of the final order/judgement passed therein. When the fee was hiked by the respondent-Institution, they filed a writ petition before this Court at Allahabad in which it was opined that a Single Judge bench of this very Court at Lucknow had passed an order, therefore, the petitioners before it should either seek a review or challenge the said judgement. It is only then that this appeal has been preferred.

4. On being confronted, the counsel for the respondent no.1 fairly 2 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 submitted that he has no objection, if the delay is condoned, but he has certain other objections.

5. In view of the above, the delay in filing the appeal is found to have been sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. Order on Application for Leave to Appeal

6. On the question of leave to appeal, we find that the appellants being students, who would ultimately pay the fee, as determined in pursuance to the judgement of the writ Court and they not having been heard nor made parties in the writ petition are entitled to be heard in this intra court appeal, a fact which the counsel for the respondent no.1 could not deny.

7. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is allowed.

8. Let a regular number be allotted to the appeal. Order on Special Appeal

9. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, we cannot sustain part of the finding of the writ Court with regard to question no. (d) which was framed by it as under:- “(d) Whether petition would be maintainable in view of appellate remedy available to petitioners in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 2006?”

10. The reasoning in part, i.e., insofar as it says- "there does not appear to be any power conferred upon the appellate authority to determine the fee structure afresh, which appears to be in the sole domain of the Committee constituted in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 2006" and similar observations in para 35 of the impugned judgement. No doubt, the initial 3 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 prerogative is that if the fee fixation committee under Section 4 to determine the fee structure and in doing so, it has to take into account the parameters mentioned in Section 10 of the U.P. Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, but then against such decision of such Committee determining the fee aforesaid, an appeal is prescribed under Section 11 which reads as under:- “11. The State Government shall appoint an Appellate Authority, headed by a person who has been a Judge of the High Court before which a person or professional institution aggrieved by an order of the Committee may file an appeal, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such an order.”

11. Though the powers of the appellate authority have not been defined on first principle, the appellate authority will have all the powers which the original authority fixing the fee has, unless any exception has been made out by prescribing specific powers to the appellate authority which is not the case herein. We do not find any factual or legal basis for the aforesaid observations of the learned Single Judge. After all, if the fixation of fee by the Committee aforesaid is to be challenged in this appeal, then two course of actions are open for the appellate authority- (i) to find out as to whether the fixation is erroneous, such as, on the ground of non consideration of provision of Section 10; and remand the matter back to the fee fixation committee or (ii) in a given fact situation, if it has the relevant material before it and is of the opinion that the same has not been taken into consideration in the light of Section 10, to determine it. We do not find any embargo in this regard in exercise of power by the appellate authority. In a given case, the latter course of action may save time, unless there are good reasons to remand the matter back to the fee 4 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 fixation committee.

12. We, therefore, set aside the aforesaid observations/findings of the learned Single Judge, but sustain the other findings with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in spite of availability of statutory remedy under Section 11 of the Act, 2006, as we find that the learned Single Judge has not entered into disputed questions of fact but has only considered firstly, as to whether the institutions were heard before a decision was taken as impugned before it by the fee fixation committee; whether it was effective herein keeping in view the principles of natural justice; whether an inquiry was conducted in terms of the earlier judgement passed in the case or not; and whether the parameters mentioned in Section 10 of the Act, 2006 were followed or not. No doubt, statutory remedy, wherever available, should be availed, but in given circumstances, the writ Court may for good and sufficient reasons, as in this case, entertain a writ petition in spite of it, especially where disputed questions of fact are not required to be adjudicated by it, therefore, we do not find any fault in this regard, subject however to what has been observed herein.

13. As regards the other issues also, we do not find any error in the judgement of the writ Court. The appellants before us are students. The reason why we have allowed their leave to appeal is that they had taken admission in the institution on the basis of the fee proposed by the institution during counselling held in between 9.8.2024 to 5.9.2024. The fee, as disclosed during counselling, was notified by the State Government on 11.7.2024 in terms of the decision taken by the Government under Section 4 of the Act, 2006. The said decision of the 5 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 State Government fixing the fee was challenged by the Association of Medical College by means of writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 6828 of 2024 which was allowed on 17.08.2024. In pursuance thereof, fresh decision was taken by the fee fixation committee in purported exercise of power under Section 4 of the Act, 2006 which was notified by the State Government on 28.10.2024. In pursuance to the judgment, the respondent no.1-Institution demanded the enhanced fee from the students, which was paid by the appellants herein. Thereafter the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No.10660 of 2024 challenging the aforesaid decision regarding fee fixation, which was allowed along with other similar writ petitions by means of the judgment impugned, as discussed herein-above. The submission of the counsel for the appellants is that initially the proposed provisional fee was notified and was made aware to the students who participated in the counselling, knowing that the fee could be enhanced and it was subsequently enhanced, which was accepted by the students. The students were not at all prepared for a situation where the fee would again be revised and enhanced further. The initial enhancement was about Rs. 31,000/- and now, it has been enhanced further by 2.50 lakhs which is cumbersome for the students. All this has happened because of re-fixation of the fee in compliance of the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2025, as the fee fixation committee determined the fee again on 05.07.2025 which was challenged by the respondent no.1- Institution and other institutions and had been quashed. The aforesaid decision of the Committee/State Government re-fixing the fee was challenged by the parents before this Court at Allahabad by means of Writ- C No.24355 of 2025, wherein initially an interim order was passed which was favourable to the appellants herein, but ultimately the writ 6 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 petition was disposed of with the observation that as a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court at Lucknow had passed the judgment which is impugned herein, therefore, the petitioner should either file a review application or an appeal. Therefore, this appeal has been filed.

14. In this scenario, we are of the opinion, especially in view of the language contained in Section 4 of the Act, 2006 as essentially it appears that quantum of fee is an issue which is being raised by the appellants and in this connection, certain issues are sought to be raised, such as, the application of re-determination of fee retrospectively to the admissions already taken and also with regard to Section 10 of the Act, 2006, we are of the opinion that the judgment in question will not come in the way of the appellants, if they challenge the decision taken in pursuance thereof in statutory appeal under Section 11. To protect the interest of the appellants herein who are students, it can further be provided that the interim relief application, if any, moved by the appellants would also be considered by the appellate authority and decided within three weeks from filing of the appeal, as we do not find any embargo in the Act, 2006 in consideration of such interim relief.

15. To facilitate the aforesaid exercise, the fee fixation committee shall provide a copy of the minutes or decision by which the fee fixation may have been determined or recommended, as the case may be, within three days of the submission of an application in this regard before the committee by the appellants or anyone.

16. Although a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of an order determining the fee under Section 4 of the Act, 2006 is prescribed as limitation for filing the appeal, but considering the fact that the said 7 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 fixation was never provided to the appellants-students, in fact, the minutes of the committee have not been provided till date; secondly, they have been litigating before this Court at Allahabad and now, in this appeal, we are of the opinion that if any such appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the same would be considered and would not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

17. Shri Ambrish Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 very fairly undertakes that if the appellants’ counsel informs him telephonically or in writing, as the case may be, about the date fixed in the appeal, he will appear on behalf of respondent no.1 without raising any such objection regarding service of notice which may be issued by the appellate authority through Whatsapp message or any other electronic means, irrespective of the aforesaid.

18. Only for a period of six weeks, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent no.1-Institution against the appellants-students based on the deposit or non-deposit of fee as demanded by it in pursuance to the decision dated 05.07.2025.

19. Shri V.P. Nag, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate our order to the Appellate Authority and the fee fixation committee for compliance.

20. The appeal of the appellants shall be considered and decided as per law, but with expedition.

21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) November 25, 2025 Shravan 8 SPLAD No. 440 of 2025 SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench