Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Gunvantlal vs State on 6 October, 2010

Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya

Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/13086/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13086 of 2010
 

 
 
=================================================
 

GUNVANTLAL
C MODI & 20 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
NIKHIL S KARIEL for Petitioners
 

Mr.
Umesh Trivedi, ADDL GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 06/10/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) 1 Petitioner, the Parents' Association, has challenged the order dated 17th July 2010 passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee [Medical], Gujarat State, whereby the Committee has communicated fixation of fee-structure for the Academic Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 for the Ahmedabad Dental College [MDS Course], Ranchhodpura.

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Fee Regulatory Committee [Medical], while fixed the fee for the aforesaid Academic Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, has not shown any ground or basis for fixation of such fee. He would further contend that the Fee Regulatory Committee being a quasi-judicial body ought to have given reasons for coming to the conclusion as to why such fee has been fixed by the Committee for one or other sessions.

3 Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the Fee Regulatory Committee has to determine the fee on the basis of certain factors as decided by the Supreme Court under the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions [Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees] Act, 2007 ['Fixation of Fees Act, 2007'] and, in the domain of the Committee taking into consideration all other factors, the Committee has decided to fix the fee-structure.

4 From the record, it would be evident that the Committee under Section 10(2) invited the proposal of fee structure with audited accounts for the year 2009-10 of the Institute vide its letter dated 22nd March 2010. The Committee received the proposal from the management dated 25th May 2010 for approval of Rs.6.25 lakhs as fees for admission of students in the institution. The Committee carried out the scrutiny of the record and books of accounts submitted by the management of the Institution and based on the preliminary scrutiny and analysis of the details furnished to it, the Committee evaluated the facilities, infrastructure, capital investment made by the college in 2009-10, plans for development on hand and for future, compliance of requirements concerning the staff, cost estimates, etc. for the purpose of fixing the fee structure for the institution subject to the final outcome of the personal hearing to be afforded to the Institution and, after hearing the Institution, the Committee, after having due concurrence with the management representatives of the Institution, fixed maximum ceiling limit of the fee of Rs.4.70 lakhs for the academic years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The aforesaid fees included all types and kind of fees such as tuition fees, fees for use of library, laboratory, computer centre, gymkhana, internet, sports and recreation and self/personality centers and the like except hostel fee and transportation fee. Further, the Committee also took into consideration the impact of revision in the pay-scale of teaching/non-teaching staff consequent upon the implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendations. The College has been advised not to collect any other fee from the students except the fees as mentioned and shown as above.

5 From the facts, it would be evident that the Committee while scrutinized all the records including audited books of accounts and other factors as noticeable, brought down the fee to Rs.4.70 lakhs for the aforesaid academic years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 against the demand of Rs.6.25 lakhs. Thus, we find no case made out to interfere with the proceedings of the Fee Regulatory Committee [Medical]. Further, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the Fee Regulatory Committee [Medical] and, in absence of any infirmity, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

[S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.] [ANANT S. DAVE, J.] (swamy)     Top