Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sree Vidyani Kethan Engineering ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 May, 2020
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH Le OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV S DAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8266 OF 2020 THU Between: 1. SREE VIDYANI KETHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE, Under the management of Sree Vidyanikethan Educational Trust, rep. by its Chairman, Sri M.Mohan Babu, S/o.M. Narayanaswamy Naidu, aged 72 years, SreeSainath Nagar, A. Rangampet Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor Dist. 2. VIGNAN'S INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, Under the management of Lavu Educational Society, rep. by its Executive Director, Sri Nandigam Srikant, S/o. N. Ramachandra Rao, aged 36 years, Beside VSEZ, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam-530049. 3. VIGNAN'S INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING FOR WOMEN, Under the management of Lavu Educational Society, rep. by its Executive Director, Sri Nandigam_ Srikant, S/o. N. Ramachandra' Rao, aged 36 years, KapuJaggarajupeta (Village), VSEZ (Post), Visakhapatnam-530049. 4. VIGNAN'S LARA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, Under the management of Lavu Educational Society, rep. by its Executive Director, Sri Nandigam Srikant, S/o. N. Ramachandra Rao, aged 36 years, Vadlamudi - 522 213, Guntur Dist. 5. VIGNAN'S NIRULA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE FOR WOMEN, Under the management of Lavu Educational Society, rep. by its Executive Director, Sri Nandigam Srikant, S/o. N. Ramachandra Rao, aged 36 years, Palakaluru, Guntur - 522006. 6. ADITYA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, Under the management of Aditya Academy, Rep. by its Vice President and Correspondent, Sri N.Satish Reddy , S/o.Sri N Sesha Reddy , aged 38 years, 2-13-15, Venkat Nagar, Kakinada East Godavari District . 7. ANIL NEERUKONDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES, Under the management of Anil Neerukonda Educational Society, Rep. by its CEO, Sri Jaya Bharat Reddy Damireddy, S/o. Sri Jayarami Reddy(late), aged 40 years, Flat no.1901, | Block, Rainbow Vistas Rock Garden Apartments, IDL road, Moosapet, Hyderabad-500018 - 8 LENDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Under the management of Sai Dnamam Educational Trust, rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, Sri K. Sivaramakrishna, S/o. K. Venkateswara Rao, aged 66 years, Jonnada (V), Denkada Mandal, NH-43, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 9. GODAVARI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Under the management of Sri Koundinya Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary Sri K Sasi Kiran Varma, S/o. K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju, aged 36 years, Velgubanda Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, Rajahmundry-533296, East Godavari District. 10.NRI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Under the management of Sri Durga Malleswri Educational Society, Rep. by its Chairman, Sri R. Venkata Rao, S/o.Kondaiah, aged 47 years, Pothavarappadu (V), Agiripalli Manda!, Via Nunna, Krishna District. 11.LINGAYAS INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, Under the Management of Sri Viveka Educational Society, Rep. by its Chairman, Sri Gadde Rajling, S/o.Vijay Kumar Sinha, Aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.40-9-08, 10, Acharya Ranga Nagar, Behind Gupta Kalyana Mandapam, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 12.KKR AND KSR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES, Under the management of GSR and KKR Educational Society, rep. by its Chairman, Sri KoyeSubbaRao, S/o.PunnaRao, aged 48 years, Vinjanampadu Village, Vatticheruku Mandal, Guntur Dist. 13.SIDDHARTH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, under the Management of Jaya Educational Society, Rep. by its Principal, Dr. K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. K. Muni Reddy, Aged 50 years, Siddharth Nagar, Narayanavanam Road, Puttur -517583, Chittoor District. 14.SIDDARTHA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, under the Management of Jaya Educational Society, Rep. by its Principal, Dr. M. Janardhana Raju, S/o. M. Subba Raju, aged 41 years, Siddharth Nagar, Narayanavanam Road, Puttur- 517583., Chittoor District. 15.SAS] INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING, Under the management of Sasi Educational Society, rep. by its Director, Dr Kavuru Bhanu Prasad, S/o K. Ranga Rao, Aged 64 years, Flat No. 202, Balaji Classic, Road No. 1, FCI Colony, Tadepalligudem- 534101, West Godavari District. 16. USHA RAMA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Under the management of Usha Rama Educational Academy, rep. by its Chairman, Sri Sunkara Ramabrahmam S/o. Sunkara Suryanarayana, Aged 74 years, D. No. 64-8-14, RaghavaNagar,Patamatalanka, Vijayawada 920010, Krishna District 17.MADANAPALLE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, Under the management of Ratakonda Ranga Reddy Educational Academy, rep. by its Secretaryand Correspondent, Sri N.Vijaya Bhaskar Chowdary, S/o.Peddappa Naidu, aged 58 years, Angallu (V), Kurabalakota Mandal, Madanapalle, Chittoor District 18.RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Under the management of Parameswara Educational Academy, rep. by its Director-Administration Dr. D.V. Ashok Kumar, S/o. D.Venkateswarlu, aged 45 years, Flat No. 104, Vasavi Residency, Opp. Old Vijaya Bank, Nandyai- 518501, Kurnool District. 19. SANTHIRAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE, Under the management of Shri Shirdi Sai Educational Academy, rep. by its Director-Administration Dr. D.V. Ashok Kumar, S/o. D.Venkateswarlu, aged 45 years, Flat No. 104, VasaviResidency,Opp. Old Vijaya Bank, Nandyal- 518501, Kurnool District. 20.D. VENKATA RAMANA AND DR. HIMA SEKHAR MIC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, Under the management of Devineni Ramana Pranitha Memorial Trust, rep. by its Director, Sri M Sreenivasa Rao, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, aged 52 years, Kanchikacherla-521180, Krishna District. 21.QIS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Under the management of Sri Nidamanuri Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, Sri N.Surya Kalyan Chakravarthy, S/o.Nageswara Rao, aged 48 years, Opp. Saibaba Temple, Kurnoo! Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. 22, SREENIVASA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES, Under the management of Srinivasa Trust, rep. by its Principal, Dr. P. Ramesh Kumar, S/o P. Subramanyam, aged 51 years, Dr. D.K, Audikesavulu Marg (Bangalore-Tirupati Bye-pass Road), Murukambattu Post, Chittoor - 517 127 23.ADITYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, Under the management of Sri Aditya Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary Sri LammataLakshmu Naidu, S/o. Late Krishna Murthy Naidu, aged 69 years , Kaseepuram Village, Dandugopalapuram Post, Sanatabommali Manadal, Srikakulam District - 532211 Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education (EC), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission, rep. by its Chairman, 3 Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block (C-Block), N H_15, Tadepalli, Guntur District. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, and more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.15, Higher Education Dept. Dated 24.03.2020 and quash the said notification fixing the fee for B.Tech courses in private, unaided professional institutions in the state of Andhra Pradesh for the academic year 2019-20 as being illegal, arbitrary in violation of the provisions of Act 5 of 1983 and Act 20 of 2019 and for being unconstitutional iA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the G.O.M.S NO.15, High Education (EC) Department, Dated 24.03.2020, pending disposal of WP 8266 of 2020, on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. Adinarayana Rao Sr. Councle for SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA Advocate for the Petitioners, and of The Additional Advocate General GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION for the Respondent-1, the Court made the following. ORDER:
"The present Writ Petition along with the miscellaneous petition has been filed by 23 engineering colleges challenging G.O.Ms.No. 15, Higher Education department dated 24.3.2020, notifying the fee structure for private un aided engineering colleges offering B.Tech. courses for the year 2019-20. 1.A. No. 1 of 2020 which is being taken up for hearing is an application for suspension of the said G.O., pending the disposal of the Writ Petition.
2. The case of the Petitioners is that, the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as Act 5 of 1983) which continues to be in force, provides for the regulation of the Tuition fee or any other fees that may be collected by any educational institution. The Government, exercising its power under section 15 of the said Act had , by way of G.O. Ms. No. 6, Higher Education, dated 8.01.2007, notified The AP Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (For Professional Courses offered in private, unaided professional Institutions) Rules, 2006. Under these rules an Admission and Fee regulatory committee (hereinafter referred to as AFRC) had been established, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case and Islamic Academy of Education and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and others (2003) 6 SCC 697.The AFRC, by following the procedure stipulated under Rule 4 of these Rules, will fix the fees that can be collected by each college and forward the same to the State Government, which would thereafter notify the fees fixed by this Committee, under Section 7 of Act 5 of 1983.The fees so fixed wil! be applicable for a block of 3 years. In fact, the fees was fixed in this manner by the AFRC, and notified by the State Government , for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19. Thereafter, the fees for the block period 2019-20 to 2021-22 had also been fixed and forwarded to the State Government for purposes of notification of the fees.
3. At that stage, the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 38, dated 30.7.2019 to the effect that the fees fixed for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19 will continue to be applicable for the year 2019-20 as an interim measure as the Government was enacting a legislation to streamline the Higher Education System in the State. This G.O. was challenged by some private engineering colleges, on various grounds, by way of W.P.No. 10310 of 2019 and W.P. No. 10336 of 2019 filed before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court had suspended the said G.O. by order dated 31.7.2019. This order became the subject matter of Writ Appeal 241 of 2019 which was disposed off by order dated 8.8.2019, with the following directions:
" The Writ Petitioners herein are permitted to collect the fee fixed for the block period 2018-19 for the engineering and other courses and obtain a bank guarantee from the students admitted in those professional courses to an extent of 50% of the difference of fee claimed by the writ petitioners-colleges or the fees recommended by AFRC to the Government, whichever is less, for the block period 2019-20 to 2021-22, which will be in force till the new fee structure is notified by the Government. The Advocate General informs that the State Government will inform to the colleges as well as the appropriate authorities about the fees claimed by the colleges and recommended by AFRC. Students shall be informed about the pendency of the Writ petition before this Court regarding fees structure and they are not entitled to claim any equities thereafter. We hope that the new fee structure taking care of the students and the management shall be notified at the earliest preferably by the end of this year. In case, the fee recommended and notified by the Government is more than the fee collected pursuant to this order, the petitioners-educational institutions are at liberty to invoke the bank guarantee to the extent of difference between fee paid and in case it is less, the petitioners shall return the amount to the students or adjust the same, if permissible."
4, Against this order, the petitioners, in those writ petitions, had filed SLP ( C) No. 020049 of 2019 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same is pending.
5. In the meanwhile, the State of Andhra Pradesh had enacted the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as The Act) which came into effect from 19.8.2019. The Act and the Rules made under the Act mandated that, upon the establishment of The Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission, ( hereinafter referred to as the Commission) with the power to monitor and regulate the fee in higher educational institutions, the AFRC set up under the earlier rules will cease to exist. The Government, established the Commission by G.O. Ms. No. 41 dated 19.8.2019. The Chairman was appointed Vide G.O. Rt. No. 144 dated 19.9.2019 and the members Vide G.O, Rt. No. 162, dated 23.10.2019.
6. The Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules 2019, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were notified Vide G.O. Ms. No. 49, Higher education department dated 11.10.2019. Rule 11 mandated that upon the Commission being formed the AFRC would cease to exist, the AP Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (For Professional Courses offered in private, unaided professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 would stand withdrawn and all the matters pending before the AFRC would be transferred to the commission including issues of fee fixation which have not yet been notified as per section 7 of Act 5 of 1983.
7. On 24.3.2020, the State government issued G.O.Ms.No. 15, Higher Education department notifying the fee for B.Tech course in private, unaided colleges for the year 2019-2020. The fee structure notified under this G.O. was at variance with the fee structure recommended by the AFRC.
8. In the backdrop of these facts, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, raised the following grounds of challenge to make out a case for grant of interlocutory orders.
1. The Act, rules and commission came into being after the commencement of the academic year 2019-20 and since the provisions of the Act are prospective in nature, the Commission does not havethe power to fix the fee and as such the impugned G.O. is illegal.
2. The fee structure has been fixed by the AFRC for the block period 2019-20 to 2021-22 and the issuance of the notification by the Government is only a ministerial formality under G.O.Ms. No.6 and the Government cannot disown the fee structure and there cannot be two sets of fees for the same academic year.
3. As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar case, the fee can be notified only at the commencement of the academic year and it cannot be notified at the end of the academic year. However, in the present case, the fee has been notified at the end of the year and is invalid in law and cannot be applicable to the year 2019-20.
4. Under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules 2019, the commission should communicate the fee structure to the Government for notification under Section 5 of Act 5 of 1983. Instead it has been issued under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules 2019. As the impugned G.O. has not been issued under section 7 of Act 5 of 1983, the same is without authority of law and has to be set aside. Further, the Fees has to be notified for a three year period as provided under Rule 8 (5) of the Rules, whereas the fee structure was notified for only one year.
9. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao has also submitted that the question of whether the Commission has followed the procedure under Rule 8 is not being pressed at this stage as the same is an issue of fact, requiring the response of the State.
10. The Petitioners have also filed a written note supplementing their oral submissions.
11. The Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 1* Respondent opposed the request for interim protection. He submitted that the power to regulate fees is in the hands of the Government. He submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme court, in Para 28 of the judgement in P.A. Inamdar's case had come down heavily on the profiteering of colleges by charging heavy fees from the students. He cited the case of one of the Petitioners to state that since the fees claimed by the petitioners was being reduced to proper levels, the present Writ Petition has been filed to ensure that the petitioners continue to profiteer by charging heavy fees.
12. The Learned Additional Advocate General also relied on the observations of the Division Bench in W.A. 241 of 2019 to the effect:
"The Writ Petitioners herein are permitted to collect the fee fixed for the block period 2018-19 for the engineering and other courses and obtain a bank guarantee from the students admitted in those professional courses to an extent of 50% of the difference of fee claimed by the writ petitioners-colleges or the fees recommended by AFRC to the Government, whichever is less, for the block period 2019-20 to 2021-22, which will be in force till the new fee structure is notified by the Government"
and submitted that this observation of the Division Bench permitted the Government to issue the impugned notification fixing the new fee structure. It was further submitted that, the recommendations of the AFRC were given for a period beyond it's tenure.
13. The 1° Respondent has also filed a written note supplementing it's arguments and aiso giving details of the steps taken by the Commission before arriving at the Fee structure for each college. | am not going into this issue as the Petitioners had specifically reserved this issue to be taken up after a counter affidavit is filed by the Respondents.
14. In the written note, the 1** Respondent has _ referred to the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the proposition that non mention of the provision of law under which an order or notification is being issued will not invalidate the proceedings if such power is traceable to some provision of law:
M.T. Khan and others Vs Government of AP ad others (2004) 2 SCC 267, State of Sikkim Vs Dorjee Tshering Bhutia 1991 CJ (SC) 590, Shahabuddin (Md) Vs State of Bihar 2010 (4} SCC 563, J. Kumaradasan Nair and Another Vs Iric Sohan and others (2009) 12 SCC 175.
15. In view of the above submissions the question is whether the Petitioners would be entitled to an interim order of suspension of G.O.Ms. No. 15, dated 24.3.2020.
16. Before dealing with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, it would be necessary to answer the contention raised by the Learned Additional Advocate General that the recommendations of the AFRC were made after it's tenure was over and for a period beyond it's tenure. As pointed out, by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Adinarayana Rao, the letter dated 16.9.2019 sent from the AFRC to the Government stated that the recommendations were sent in June 2019 itself, which was before the end of the Term of the AFRC. Rule 4 (v) of the AFRC rules mandates that the fee determined by the AFRC would be valid for a period of 3 years. As such the recommendation of the AFRC for the period 2019- 20 to 2021-22 cannot be faulted on that ground.
17. The submission of the Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Petitioners, that the Act is prospective in nature and the Commission would not have power to fix fees for the year 2019-20 onwards would have to be considered in the light of Rule 11 (b) of the Rules which states that:
"114 (a)
(b) All matters pending with the AFRC shall be transferred to the commission including the issues of fee fixation which have not been notified as per Act 5 of 1983, as and when the Commission takes charge;"
18. As the Fee structure had not been notified by the time' the Commission took charge in October 2019, it would have to be held that the Rule permits the Commission to consider issues of fee fixation for the period 2019-20 to 2021-22. The question whether the Act itself is prospective and the said Rule is beyond the Act and cannot operate retrospectively is an issue which does not arise here, as the said Rule is not under challenge.
19. The second submission of the Learned Senior Counsel that the Government cannot go back on the requirement to notify the fee structure recommended by the AFRC under the earlier rules issued under G.O.Ms. No.6 may not survive in view of the fact that the earlier rules issued under G.O. Ms. No. 6 stood withdrawn by October 2019 and there could not have been any notification under the earlier rules after October 2019. The question whether the determination of the Fee structure conducted earlier by the AFRC would be binding on the Commission and the Government and the same fee structure would have to be notified under the new Rules would require a deeper look after a full fledged counter affidavit is filed by the Respondents.
20. The third submission of the Learned Senior Counsel is that the fee structure would have to be notified at the beginning of the academic year and the notification of the fee structure at the end of the year is not permissible in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.A. No. 241 of 2019, after referring to the Judgement of the Apex court in Inamdar's case and Islamic Academy, had held that the interim measures would be in place till the Government notified the new fee structure and hoped that it would be notified by the end of the year 2019. It has been submitted that this order is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The written note of the Respondents also mentions that the Respondent No.2 Commission has filed an application for leave and another application to extend the time for determining the new fee structure for the block period 2019-20 which, were numbered, as |.A.No. 1 and 2 of 2020 in W.A. No. 241 of 2019, which are pending. Once the 2" Respondent Commission itseif was unsure whether the earlier order permitted it to fix and notify the fee structure at this point of time and sought extension of time and clarification of this issue from the High Court, it would have been in the fitness of things to have put on hold, the notification of the fees by the impugned G.O., till the said applications had been decided by the Hon'ble High Court. In any event, before any view can be taken on this issue, it would be appropriate to await the decision of the Division Bench.
21. The last ground raised was that the notification has been issued under the Rules and not under Section 7 of Act 5 of 1983 and as such is without authority of law. Rule 8 (5) and (6) of the Rules provide:
(5) The Commission shall communicate the fee structure as determined by it, to the Government, for notification under Act 5 of 1983; (6) The fee or scale of fee determined by the Commission shall be valid for a period of three years;
22. This would mean that the recommendations of the Commission would be communicated to the Government under the Rules and the Government would thereupon, notify the recommendations under Section 7 of Act § of 1983.
23. Coming to the impugned notification, the relevant part states as follows:
"4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 8 of the A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules 2019 issued in G.O.Ms. No. 49, Higher Education (UE) Department dated 11.10.2019 and in pursuance of the resolutions of the A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission (APHERMC), in their meeting held on 17.3.2020, the Commission recommended the fee structure for private Un-Aided Professional Institutions offering B.Tech courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
5. Accordingly, the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby notify the following Tuition Fee and special fee structure for Graduate Engineering (B.Tech.) courses in Private Un-Aided Professional Institutes in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the year 2019-20:-*
24. The above extract would show that the recitals in 'the Notification merely Set out the provisions of the Rules under which the recommendations of the Commission were sent to the Government. The Notification does not set out the provision of law under which the said notification has been made by the Government. In fact, the earlier notification, G.O. Ms. No. 39 dated 26.6.2016, for the period 2016-17 to 2018-19, filed before this court by the Petitioners, also does not state the provision of law under which the earlier notification has been issued and it appears that the Impugned G.O. had been issued in the same format.
25. As submitted by the Learned Additional Advocate general, a notification or order of an authority does not fail merely because no provision of law is mentioned. If the power to issue such a notification can be traced to any provision of law, it would be deemed to have been issued under such provision. (M.T. Khan and others Vs Government of AP ad others (2004) 2 SCC 267, State of Sikkim Vs Dorjee Tshering Bhutia 1991 CJ (SC) 590, Shahabuddin (Md) Vs State of Bihar 2010 (4) SCC 563, J. Kumaradasan Nair and Another Vs Iric Sohan and others (2009) 12 SCC 175). In the instant case, Section 7 of Act 5 of 1983 would grant such power to the Government. The issue of the G.O. cannot be faulted on that count.
26. The written note filed by the Respondents states that "the Commission has already issued notification dated 24.4.2020 calling for online submission of data and figures in the prescribed schedules for the Block period of 3 years i.e., 2020-21 to 2022-23 to determine and revise the fee afresh by physically and authentically verifying the said data submitted by all the Colleges including the Petitioner colleges herein. This exercise undertaken by APHERMC will bring out the ground reality of the petitioner's colleges profiteering since the last block period and accordingly the fee will be determined by the APHERMC for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23." This would mean that the impugned notification is only for the year 2019-20 and will not be extended for the remaining two years of the biock period of 2019-20 to 2021-22.
27. Rule 8 (6) of the Rules mandates that the Fee fixed by the Commission would be valid for a period of three years. The three year block period appears to have been fixed as a measure of protection to the students and also to give the managements of professional colleges a clear idea of the cash flow so as to organise their affairs and whether the fee structure fixed by the AFRC/Commission would be adequate to meet the needs of the college for the next three years.
28. This would mean that any fees fixed by the Commission cannot be notified as the fees fixed for that year alone. The notification would have to be issued fixing fees for the block period of three years for the years 2019-20 to 2021-22. Any notification to the Contrary would have to be treated as being violative of the Rules. The impugned notification fixes the fee structure only for the year 2019-20. The written note also makes it clear that this notification will not be extended for the remaining two years of the Block period 2019-20 to 2021-22 which is prima facie impermissible in view of Rule 8 (6) of the Rules which mandates that the Fee structure would have to be fixed for 3 years.
29. In view of the prima facie violation of Rule 8 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules 2019, the impugned G.O. cannot be permitted to operate and has to be suspended,
30. In the said circumstances, G.O.Ms.No.15, Higher Education department, dated 24.3.2020, shall stand suspended till further orders. Rew es gdi-P.V.RAMANA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR _ wie ceaned) bug TAK HTRUE COPY// vs ; 7 EG For ASSISTANT ISTRAR To, ae je . The Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education (EC}, Secretariat, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission, 3" Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block (C-Block), N H_15, Tadepalli, Guntur District. (Addresses 1 and 2 by RPAD) The Additional Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT] One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One spare copy HIGH COURT fo DATED:07/05/2020 ORDER / WP.No.8266 of 2020 SUSPENDED