Gujarat High Court
Society Of Higher Education ... vs Gujarat University on 18 February, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13001 of 2016
==========================================================
SOCIETY OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AHMEDABAD
Versus
GUJARAT UNIVERSITY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UDAYAN P VYAS(1302) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YATIN SONI(868) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
VIKAS V NAIR(7444) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 18/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Udayan Vyas for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Vikas Nair for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"(A) That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Gujarat University refraining Unaided Private Educational Institutions imparting Non-Professional Courses leading qualification of B.Com., B.B.A. and B.C.A. from enhancing the fees on and from the Academic Year 2016-2017 on the basis of the report dated 29th July, 2016 submitted by Page 1 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined Review Committee discarding the report to the dated 24th May, 2016 submitted by Fee Review Committee as arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, non-est and void being violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and thereupon, be pleased to quash and set aside the report dated 29th July, 2016 of the Review Committee;
(B) That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Gujarat University to implement the recommendations of the report dated 24th May, 2016 submitted by Fee Regulatory Committee headed by Justice J. M. Panchal, a Former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, permitting the increase in fee to be charged by Educational Institutions Unaided Private imparting Non-Professional Education leading to the qualification of B.Com., B.B.A. and B.C.A. on and from the Academic Year 2016-2017;
(C) That, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Gujarat University to permit increase in the fee to be charged by Unaided Private Educational Institutions imparting Non-
Professional Education leading to the qualification of B.Com., B.B.A. and B.C.A. on and from the Academic Year 2016-2017 on the basis of recommendation of report dated 24th May, 2016 submitted Fee Regulatory Committee headed by Justice J. M. Panchal, a Former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
(D) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such further and other orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require;"
Page 2 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
3. From the prayer it can be seen that what is under challenge by way of this petition by the petitioner is the action of Gujarat University of publishing a report dated 29.07.2016 whereby the earlier report submitted by the Fee Regulatory Committee dated 24.05.2016 was not accepted. The fact as stated by learned advocate Mr. Vyas is that for the academic year 2016-17, the petitioner - Trust as in respect of various colleges running under the Trust and imparting education by way of various courses has prescribed the fees as recommended by the Fees Regulatory Committee vide its report dated 24.05.2016. Since, some students including respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are students in their personal capacity as well as Secretary of Student Union have opposed the same and therefore the University constituted a separate committee which submitted its report dated 29.07.2016 and accordingly, the recommendation of the Fees Regulatory Committee dated 24.05.2016 was not accepted and that action was under
challenge.
4. At the relevant point of time when the petition was preferred, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2017 passed following interim order:-
"1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. D. C. Dave with learned advocate Mr. Udayan P. Vyas Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined for the petitioner, whereas learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi with learned advocate Mr. S. K. Vishen for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Perused the record.
2. Petitioner is a society registered under the law as a trust for carrying out educational activities. Respondent No.1 is a University whereas respondent No. 2 is its Vice Chancellor and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are students amongst on respondent No.4 has disclosed that he is secretary of student organization namely Ahmedabad Branch of Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad.
3. Petitioners herein, being the society of higher educational institutes has prayed for writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions, so as to declare action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 University in discarding the report dated 24.05.2016 submitted by the Fee Review Committee for enhancing the fees for the courses of B.Com, BBA and BCA as arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and void being violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and to quash and set aside the report dated 19.06.2016 of the another Review Committee. Petitioner has also prayed to implement the report dated 24.05.2016 by such Fee Regulatory Committee headed by Justice J. M. Panchal, Former Judge of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and, thereby, permitting to increase fee to be charged by unaided private educational institutions imparting non professional educational courses like B.Com, BBA and BCA from the academic year 2016 - 2017. As interim relief petitioners have also prayed for the direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined University to permit the increase in fee to be charged, as such.
4. Before entering into any further facts or details, it would be appropriate to verify that what is the fees before such recommendations of committee for the colleges, which are members of the petitioner society and other colleges which are affiliated with other universities for the similar courses. Petitioners have already produced a comparative chart at page 107 of the petition which is reproduced herein under :
5. Therefore, it is very much clear from such comparative chart that for similarly situated courses approved by other universities that range of the fees is between the range of Rs.9150/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. If we scrutinize the table minutely, it becomes clear that for the course of B. Com, minimum fee is Rs.9150/- is approved by the Bhavnagar University, whereas maximum fees of Rs.40,000/- is approved by the Ahmedabad University. As against that for the course of B. Com, Gujarat University has approved Rs.7000/-.
5.1 Similarly, for the course of BBA, minimum fees of Rs.13450/- is approved by Bhavnagar University, whereas maximum fees of Rs.1,25,000/- is approved by the AURO University. As against that, for the course of BBA, Gujarat University has approved Rs.14000/- as fees.
5.2 Similarly, for the course of BCA, minimum fees of Rs.20,000/- is approved by Kadi Sarva Vishwa Vidhyalaya and maximum fees of Rs.25,000/- is approved by the AURO University.Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined As against that, for the course of BCA, Rs.18,000/- is approved by the Gujarat University.
6. Such comparative chart is part of the report of the Fee Regulatory Committee. The committee was constituted by as many as Eight eminent dignitaries of the respective field viz. (1)Justice J. M. Panchal, Former Judge, the Supreme Court of India & Chairman, Fee Regulatory Committee. (2)Dr. M. N. Patel, Vice - Chancellor, Gujarat University & Member, Fee Regulatory Committee.
(3)Dr. N. K. Jain, I/c. Registrar, Gujarat University & Member, Fee Regulatory Committee.
(4)Shri Maheshabhai Kaswal, Executive Council Member Gujarat University & Member, Fee Regulatory Committee.
(5)Dr. Digvijaydinh Gohil, Secretary, Self Financed Colleges Assocuation of Colleges affiliated Gujarat University & Member, Fee Regulatory Committee.
(6)Dr. Himanshu Pandya, Professor, Botany Department, Gujarat University & Member, Fee Regulatory Committee.
(7)Dr. Kamaljit L. Lakhtaria, Professor, Computer Science Department, Gujarat University & Member, Fee Regulatory Committee. (8)Shri Udaybhai Shah, Chartered Accountant & Member, Fee Regulatory Committee.
6.1 Therefore, it becomes clear that the committee is constituted by Academicians, Chartered Accountant, Representative of Colleges and University and headed by a retired Judge of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and having Registrar of the Gujarat University as one of the members to support the activities of the committee.
Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
7. Therefore, when as back as in the month of February 2016 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have thought it fit to review the fee structure of self financed institution for the courses under reference, prima facie it is clear that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have realized the necessity of revision of fee structure. The committee has, in its report, made it clear that in addition to the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges and Institutions (Regulation of admission and fixation of fees) Act, 2007 so also the Gujarat Professional Educational Colleges and Institutions (Regulation of admission and fixation of Fees) Act 2007, it would bear in mind the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in case of P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2005 SCW 3923. The committee has reproduced the broad principles of above referred Statute and Judgment in its report in para 3 under the heading of objectives on page 97 to 99, which is self explanatory and, therefore, not reproduced to avoid bulkiness of this order. The committee has, thereafter, noted the broad process undertaken by it in as many as 15 paragraphs running into 5 pages before coming to the conclusion that;
"the committee has considered the details of infrastructure, staff etc. and cost structure submitted by institutions based on the audited financial statements for academic years of 2016- 17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 as adjusted on account of specific treatment of certain items of cost of education as mentioned in sub points (a) to (j) of Point no.10, that were excessive, not relevant to the cost of education etc."
7.1 Thereupon, the committee has called upon Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined the information from different universities, which is on page 107 and reproduced herein above. Thereafter, the committee has considered the relevant information and factors in arriving at the conclusion that the fees of the B. Com shall be increased from Rs.7000/- to Rs.8500/- for the year 2016 - 2017, which shall be further increased to Rs.9000/- for the year 2017-2018 and Rs.9500/- for the academic year 2018-2079, for colleges which are situated outside Ahmedabad whereas colleges situated herein in Ahmedabad, fees is suggested as Rs.9500/- for the academic year 2016-2017, Rs.10,500/- for 2017-2018 and Rs. 11,500/- for the 2018-2019.
7.2 Similarly for the course of BBA Rs.18,000/- for the year 2016 - 2017, Rs.20,000/- for the year 2017 - 2018 and Rs.22,000/- for the year 2018 - 2019 for the colleges situated in Ahmedabad City and for rural areas Rs.16,000/- for the year 2016 - 2017, Rs.17,000/- for the year 2017 - 2018 and Rs.18,000/- for the year 2018 - 2019 .
7.3 Whereas, for the course of BCA the suggested fee is Rs.22,000/- for the year 2016 - 2017, Rs.24,000/- for the year 2017 - 2018 and Rs.26,000/- for the year 2018 - 2019.
8. However, at this stage, it would be appropriate to first consider the submissions by learned advocate Mr. Soni for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who has contended that this petition is not maintainable for the reason that there is no breach of any fundamental right and that petitioner has no right to get the fees increased, so also University has no reason to constitute such committee and to increase the fees as per recommendations of the committee.
Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
9. Therefore, prima facie it seems that when members of the committee whose details are disclosed herein above have scrutinized the legal position and all other aspect and when they have recommended marginal addition in the fee structure and then though University may have its discretion either to accept or to reject such recommendations by the review committee, the fact remains that if such recommendations are once approved, then for rejection there must be cogent and sufficient reasons with evidence to confirm that the recommendations of the committee are not required to be accepted and, thereby, to deviate from the previous decision. Therefore, there is difference between rejecting the recommendations on the threshold either on merits or on discretion but once such recommendations are accepted by the University, changing such decision of acceptance would certainly be subject to scrutiny by the competent authority that how and why there is altogether different and adverse decision than the previous decision and, thereby, to reject the recommendations in toto. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission by the respondent that since the review committee is not the statutory committee and since there is neither law nor rule to confirm that University is bound to accept the decision or suggestion of such review committee and, thereby, University has discretionary powers either to accept or to reject the suggestion of such committee. The decision of University which is impugned in this petition, which is subject to scrutiny because once University has accepted such suggestion allowing the rise in the fees of the colleges and, therefore, only because of representation of particular class of students if University has to change its stand and that too by assigning altogether different reasons regarding non Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined availability of proper infrastructure without having any evidence to prove such allegation, there is no option but to scrutinize such decision to see that whether it is arbitrary or under coercion of particular facts and circumstances or group or not. Thereby if impugned decision of the University to discard the recommendations of committee of dignitaries and thereby to revise their own decision, then there is reason to scrutinize such decision to see that it is neither arbitrary nor under co-version or pressure or under some other influence, when petitioner is challenging its legality.
10. Whereas learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dave for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions to confirm that in such matters practically students have no right to object the fee structure and, therefore, only because they are allowed to be implemented in this petition on their own request, it cannot be said that they have absolute right to object to such petition on any such ground.
10.1 For such submission learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dave is relying upon following decisions:
(1)Pushpagiri Medical Society vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 135, wherein full bench has, relied upon the decision in the case of T. M. A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 and held as under;
"10. For the present purpose, as interim measure, we are of the view that the students should provisionally pay the fee as fixed by Justice Thomas in the order dated 28-5-2004, which means that the students should neither pay the fee as claimed by the petitioner institution nor one postulated by Section 4 of Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined the Act. This direction would be applicable for the present academic year 2004-05. The provisional payment at the aforesaid rate would be subject to further orders as may be passed by this Court.' Such decision was with reference to the question regarding fee structure. It is found from the judgment that in terms of decision in case of Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697, the government of Kerala had appointed a committee headed by Justice K. T. Thomas which has fixed the fees to be collected from each student of private self finance medical college. The Honourable Supreme Court has also observed that the question as to whether or not the students can afford or not, the fee fixed by Justice Thomas Committee is not very relevant and in that case government may subside such student as it may deem fit just and proper. It was the case by unaided medical college that had been restrained from charging fees from its students.
(2) Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 14 SCC 186, wherein also the Honourable Supreme Court has relied upon the case of TMA Pai (supra) and observed as well as held in following terms;
"21. In these writ petitions, this court on 10.8.2004 issued an interim direction that the fees prescribed by the Committee shall prevail for the time being though provisional and it would be open to the Colleges to take an undertaking from the students that in case higher fee is payable, they will pay the same.Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
24. Therefore, it follows that as far as 2003-04 is concerned there is no legally valid or binding fee fixation. The fixation of fee involves examination of various accounting aspects with reference to principles/guidelines given in Islamic Academy and Inamdar (supra). It can be done only by a Fee Fixation Committee by giving due opportunity to the concerned colleges and after hearing the State Government. Such a determination of fee becomes necessary in regard to the year 2003-04. In the circumstances, the Government order dated 10.12.2004 fixing the fee for 2003-04 has to be considered only as an interim arrangement pending final determination by the Fee Fixation Committee.
32. We, accordingly, allow these writ petitions in part as follows: (a) It is declared that the fixation of fees so far done, either by the Fee Fixation Committee/State Government for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 was only as an interim provisional measure, subject to final determination that is yet to be done.
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) xxx xxx xxx
(d) xxx xxx xxx
(e) If the fee determined by the Committee is less than what has been already recovered, the concerned College shall refund the excess fee collected to the respective student."
(3)D. A. V. College Managing Committee vs. Laxminarayan Mishra & Ors. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 69, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed and held as under;
"Objections, if any, should be entertained only from the parents' representatives and not from individual parents. An individual may at times Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined be reckless and may harm the educational prospects of all the students of the school. If a claim for revision of fees is stalled for long due to merit-less objections, it can affect academic standards on account of disgruntled staff and teachers who may even quit the institution for want of appropriate salary and perks. Such state of affairs with regard to the concerned schools has been highlighted on behalf of the appellant. The selected parents' representatives, on the other hand, are expected to be more responsible as a body. In the present case, only some individual parents have prevented the schools from realising revised fees since 2009. It is not possible to assess the injury caused to the schools nor is it possible to award any compensation by allowing revised fees to be realised from any earlier date such as 1.6.2012 as prayed on behalf of the appellant. However, it is satisfying to note that the State of Odisha has not raised any objection to the recommendations of the Fee Structure Committee, Odisha and, therefore, there is no legal impediment of any substance in allowing this appeal."
(4)Order dated 23.03.2010 in Civil Application NO. 6811 of 2009 in Special Civil Application NO.3289 of 2009, the division bench of this Court has held that;
"Request of the students for being joined as party to the petition cannot be accepted. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the students may heard by the Fee Committee before taking a final decision. We find that there is o such procedure under the stature and we are of the opinion that students' participation in such proceedings cannot be granted as matter of right. The application is disposed of accordingly"Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined 10.2 Therefore, above discussion makes it clear that petition is maintainable and that though respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are permitted to be joined as such, it cannot be said that only because of their objections Court is not empowered to pass appropriate order.
11. In view of above facts and circumstances, at present we are concerned with admission of the matter with interim relief, if any, permissible as per law and, therefore, when matter is yet to be decided finally on merits and after considering rival submissions, it would be appropriate not to discuss all minute details and to determine it on either side, so as to prejudice any litigant.
However, it cannot be ignored that recommendations of the committee constituted by the respondent - University has been once accepted by the University but thereafter on objections by the respondent No.4, University has constituted once another committee of its officers only which has decided that pursuant to objections taken by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 other students if there is lack of requisite fees in the colleges, then recommendations of committee is not to be accepted and thereby not to be increased. Therefore, respondent No.2 has diluted the authority of the committee constituted and head by the retired Judge of the Honourable Supreme Court including academicians, chartered accountant and officers of the University itself and, therefore, if they wanted to decide against decision of the committee then they should have referred the objections received by them to such committee for further opinion or they should have verified the allegations submitted before them regarding short coming in facility and other infrastructure by some of the colleges.
Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
12. For the purpose, this Court has by an order dated 24.04.2017 called upon the University to verify that whether colleges affiliated with the University is offering requisite facilities or not. Pursuant to such directions, University has constituted the committee of two members as suggested by Vice - Chancellor and pursuant to local inspection by such committee the University has placed report dated 04.05.2017 on record, which confirms that in most of the colleges there is no issue regarding short fall of basic infrastructure and other facility. This report proves that second committee of the officers which has decided not to implement the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee has merely acted upon submissions before it without considering its factual details. It cannot be ignored that report of such committee constituted of five persons, at least one of the member namely Mr. Dhaval Patel in terms of such report dated 29.06.2016 has stated that he does not agree with such report to refuse to implementation of fee review committee does such report is in the form of opinion dated 29.07.2016 categorically confirms that they have simply considered the memorandum of allegations by different students union, students, Gujarat University Teachers Association (self financed) so also written representations of four members of Senate of University. However, it is disclosed in report dated 04.05.2017 that all the facilities are properly available in all colleges. Another ground of irregularity as alleged by the students in the colleges like absence of faculty member and payment of less salary to the faculty member. However, there is no basis for such allegation. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and other similarly situated persons are only interested to see that there is no revision of fees Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined at any cost. The answer to such situation is very much found in the judgment of Laksham (supra) by the Honourable Supreme Court.
13. Learned advocate Mr. Soni has submitted that University is independent body and its administration is controlled by the Board of Senators and fee review committee was constituted by the University itself. It is also undisputed fact that second committee is not having dignitaries like previous committee and report of first committee has never been looked into.
14. In view of above facts and circumstances, matter requires full consideration and to be decided after extending reasonable opportunity to all concerned. Therefore, Rule returnable on 11.09.2017. Learned advocate Ms. S. K. Vishen wavies service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.3.
15. In view of same facts and circumstances, let there be an interim relief in terms of para 20(C) but with condition that colleges affiliated with respondent No.1 University which claims revision fees as per the recommendations dated 24.05.2016 by Fee Regulatory Committee shall disclose collection of total amount of fees by them to the University and in case of pendency of this petition on record of this petition and shall file a bank guarantee of amount of difference between original fee and revised fee with undertaking that if they failed in this petition, then such additional fee shall be refunded to the concerned students. For the purpose, if required, University may recover such amount from the bank guarantee filed by Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined the petitioner as aforesaid.
Direct Service is permitted."
5. The aforesaid order was carried in appeal by the present petitioner only for a limited purpose as the Co-ordinate bench of this Court directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of amount of difference between original fees and revised fees along with an undertaking, by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1343 of 2017 wherein the Division Bench of this Court modified the order to the extend the petitioner - Trust is required to file an undertaking only vide order dated 12.09.2017 and disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1343 of 2017. The order dated 12.09.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1343 of 2017 reads as under:-
"1. By way of this appeal which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant- original petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 23.6.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.13001 of 2016 to the extent of imposing a condition of bank guarantee to be furnished by all self finance colleges affiliated to Gujarat University in respect of an amount of difference between original fee and revised fee while granting interim relief in favour of the appellant- petitioner in terms of paragraph 20(C) of the Special Civil Application.
2. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.D.C.Dave assisted by learned advocate Mr.Udayan Vyas for the appellant-petitioner, learned Advocate Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined General Mr.Kamal Trivedi assisted by learned AGP Ms.S.K.Vishen for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr.Yatin Soni for respondent nos.3 and 4.
3. Learned senior counsel Mr.Dave for the appellant-petitioner mainly submitted that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also registered as public trust for attainment of the objects enumerated in its Memorandum of Association. The main activity of the petitioner is carrying out educational activities. As per Rule 4 of the rules and regulations of the petitioner, many educational institutions imparting education in various disciplines affiliated to universities in Gujarat state including all unaided private educational institutions imparting non- professional undergraduate education for B.Com., B.B.A. and B.C.A. affiliated to Gujarat University are members of the petitioner-society. It is pointed out that undergraduate courses leading to educational qualification of B.Com., B.B.A. and B.C.A. are not qualified as professional courses or technical courses and therefore they are not covered by any Fee Regulatory Committee. However, so far as such unaided private educational institutions and colleges are concerned, the fee structure which was prevalent in the year 2004-05 was revised in the year 2009-10. For the purpose of revising the fee structure on uniform basis, a suggestion was made for and on behalf of the petitioner to Gujarat University to form a Committee so that the fee structure can be evolved in a transparent manner. Accordingly, a Three Member Committee was constituted by the respondent- Gujarat University and thereafter the fee structure proposed by the said Committee after considering the representation made by the Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined educational institutions and colleges on the basis of the cost incurred for imparting education in B.Com., B.B.A., and B.C.A. was accepted by the petitioner. The same fee structure was prevailing since 2009-2010.
4. Learned counsel Mr.Dave thereafter submitted that after a period of five years, the University has not reviewed its decision for increase of the fees and therefore in June, 2013 when the admission process for the aforesaid courses was started, it was mentioned in the admission form published by the University that fee charged at present will be subject to review, if any. Thereafter, certain correspondence took place between the petitioner and respondent- University. Ultimately, on representation made by the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, under the authority conferred upon him pursuant to the Agenda No.2(248) in the meeting of the Executive Council on 1.3.2016, decided to constitute Fee Review Committee under the chairmanship of Justice J.M.Panchal, former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for the purpose of considering the proposal of all unaided private educational institutions and colleges for enhancing the fees to be charged in respect of non-professional educational courses relating to B.Com., B.B.A., B.C.A. on and from the academic year 2016-17. The said committee submitted the report on 24.5.2016 which was placed before Executive Council of the respondent-Gujarat University. However, during the meeting of the Executive Council, the concerned union of the students made representation and ultimately the respondent- University constituted a Five Member Review Committee on 12.7.2016. The said committed submitted report on 29.7.2016 wherein by a Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined majority discarded the report of the Fee Review Committee headed by Justice J.M.Panchal, Former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the captioned petition in which it has been prayed that the report of the Review Committee dated 29.7.2016 discarding the report dated 24.5.2016 submitted by the Fee Review Committee be declared as arbitrary, unjust and same be quashed and set aside and also prayed that the respondent- University be directed to implement the recommendation of the report dated 24.5.2016 submitted by Fee Review Committee headed by Justice J.M.Panchal, Former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India permitting the increase of fee to be charged by unaided private educational institutions imparting non- professional education like B.Com., B.B.A., B.C.A., on and from academic year 2016-17.
5. Learned counsel Mr.Dave submitted that the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 20(C) of the petition, however, on condition that the petitioner shall file a bank guarantee of amount of difference between the original fee and revised fee with undertaking that if they fail in this petition, the said additional fee shall be refunded to the concerned students. It is contended that the said condition imposed by the learned Single Judge is harsh and once the learned Single Judge has granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 20(C), the interest of students can be safeguarded by taking undertaking of the members of the petitioner to the aforesaid effect. However, the condition of filing bank guarantee be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-Gujarat University Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined has fairly submitted that if the members of the petitioner are ready and willing to submit an undertaking before this Court to the effect that the amount of difference between original fee and revised fee shall be refunded to the concerned students in case the petition is dismissed, then the order passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to submitting bank guarantee may appropriately be modified.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Soni appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 contended that the review committee constituted by the respondent- Gujarat University has rightly submitted the report dated 29.7.2016 discarding the report dated 24.5.2017 submitted by the Fee Review Committee. It is submitted that the University is independent body and its administration is controlled by the Board of Senators and Review Committee was constituted by the University itself and therefore no error can be found with the report dated 29.7.2016 submitted by the said Committee. It is further submitted that some of the colleges affiliated to the respondent-Gujarat University are not having basic facilities and therefore fees cannot be increased in such type of institutions. He, therefore, requested that the present appeal be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, the limited issue in the present appeal which is required to be considered by us is whether the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge with regard to filing of Bank Guarantee by the petitioner is proper or not? At this stage, it is required to be noted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not challenged by respondent Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined nos.3 and 4 by filing separate appeal and therefore it is not open for the respondent nos.3 and 4 to contend that the report dated 29.7.2016 submitted by the Review Committee is correct and the report dated 24.5.2016 submitted by the Fee Review Committee be discarded. Learned Single Judge was prima facie of the opinion that the interim relief in terms of paragraph 20(C) as prayed for in the petition is required to be granted in favour of the petitioner. Paragraph 20(C) of the petition reads as under:
"20(C) That, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Gujarat University to permit increase in the fee to be charged by Unaided Private Educational Institutions imparting Non- Professional Education leading to the qualification of B.Com., B.B.A., and B.C.A., on and from the Academic Year 2016- 2017 on the basis of recommendation of report dated 24th May 2016 submitted Fee Regulatory Committee headed by Justice J.M.Panchal, Former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;"
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that interest of students can be safeguarded by modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the members of the petitioner shall file an undertaking before Registry of this Court that the amount of difference between the original fee and revised fees shall be refunded to the concerned students if the petition is ultimately dismissed. Such an undertaking shall be submitted before the Registry of this Court and a copy of the same be submitted before the Gujarat University, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the members of the petitioner.
Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
10. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order dated 23.6.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.13001 of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal and civil application are disposed off."
6. Today, learned advocate Mr. Udayan Vyas for the petitioner under instructions stated that after the aforesaid order was passed by the Division Bench on 12.09.2017, till date as per his instructions none of the students have claimed any refund from the petitioner - Trust in respect of difference of fees paid by them or have requested the petitioner - Trust to charge the fees as per the report dated 29.07.2016. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas upon instructions has also stated that that the report of the Fee Regulatory Committee is in respect of academic year 2016-17 and for subsequent years of the duration of the course and thereafter, once the aforesaid duration was over, there were two or three batches who have completed the studies of the similar courses but with different fees structure which is not challenged by anyone. Therefore, the students who have studied from 2016-17 academic year in various courses have already passed out long back and today they must be settled in their life but have not claimed any refund of the difference of fees.
7. According to learned advocate Mr. Vyas, now the issue Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined has become academic in view of the fact that none of the students have come forward either claiming refund of the fees or stating that the report dated 29.07.2016 be made final accept for one student who is respondent No. 3 herein. Respondent No. 4 is a student union who has also preferred an application for being impleaded as party in the petition at the relevant point of time but has not chosen to challenge the order dated 12.09.2017 by preferring any Special Leave to Appeal and therefore according to learned advocate Mr. Vyas the interim order passed by the Division Bench be made final and no other order may be passed except the above order in view of the fact that the students have already studied and have passed out from the institution.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Vikas Nair appearing for the University could not object or oppose the petition by stating anything contrary to what was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Vyas for the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that in view of the fact that he has no instructions from respondent Nos. 3 and 4, this Court may pass appropriate order considering the submissions of the petitioner however, he states that though there is no instructions from respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the stand of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is already reflected that they are opposing the petition and therefore their opposition may be Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined noted and in absence of their being any instruction to learned advocate Mr. Soni the same may not be construed as consent on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
9. In view of above, though respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have opposed the petition, the fact remains that the relief is being enjoyed by the present petitioner since 23.06.2017 which was subsequently modified by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2017 at the time when the Letters Patel Appeal was disposed of. Further, in the meantime, there is no application preferred for modification of conditions or vacating interim relief by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 either before this Court or in respect of order dated 12.09.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1343 of 2017. Even learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni also could not point out from the record that during pendency of this petition any application for vacating interim relief or modifying the order either before this Court or before Division Bench is made nor the order passed by the Division Bench dated 12.09.2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1343 of 2017 is carried in appeal by way of Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
10. In view of above factual background, when the report submitted by the Fee Regulatory Committee dated 24.05.2016 Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13001/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined has been acted upon by the petitioner - Trust and fees has been charged as per the report of the Fee Regulatory Committee which is constituted by the Executive Council of Gujarat University and when the Co-ordinate bench has by passing an elaborate order granted relief in favour of present petition which has been subsequently modified by the Division Bench to the extent that instead of giving bank guarantee and undertaking given by the petitioner would be sufficient, I do not see any reason to disturb the above order which has remained in operation all throughout the pendency of this petition. Therefore, this is a fit case for making interim order final in the facts of this case.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by making the interim order final and as the students have already passed out, no further direction is required to be given nor any further scrutiny of the order dated 29.07.2017 is required since the said order has remained in operation all throughout and was not acted upon by the petitioner - Trust and therefore the cause would not survive. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 03:07:13 IST 2026