Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church ... vs Fee Regulatory Committee For on 3 February, 2010

Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18893 of 2008(Y)


1. MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH MEDICAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRTESENTED BY ITS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :03/02/2010

 O R D E R
                  Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      W.P.(C) Nos. 18893, 20353, 26964 & 30908 OF 2008
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
              Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

These writ petitions relate to the fixation of fees of students in certain medical colleges, the managements of which, have not entered into agreements with the Government for sharing of seats.

2. Act 19 of 2006 fell for consideration as to its constitutional validity and interpretation, in the decision rendered by this Court in Lisie Medical and Educational Institution v. State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT 409]. Thereafter, the Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges, hereinafter "FRC" for short, issued an order dated 26.04.07 fixing the fees. That was interfered with by this Court in Malankara Orthodox SCM College v. Fee Regulatory Committee [2007(4) KLT 530], issuing directions to consider the issue as to any profiteering by the managements and to hear the managements specifically on any issue referable to profiteering. Thereafter, FRC issued order No.FRC 1/08/MBBS-2  WP(C) No.18893 of 2008 and connected cases.

and similar orders dated 24.03.2008 in relation to different colleges who are petitioners in the first three among the captioned matters. On the ground that such decision was rendered by erroneous arithmetical calculation in the matter of arriving at the per-capita fee to be paid by the students, the management filed applications before FRC seeking review of the aforesaid order. By judgment in WP(C) No.15732/08, the FRC was directed by this Court to consider those review applications. Following that, FRC met and issued an order on 09.06.2008 dismissing the review petition stating that, after perusing the review petition filed by the management and hearing the parties the matter was discussed in detail and that, finally, FRC found that there is no arithmetical or calculation error in the order sought to be reviewed. This is under challenge.

3. Learned senior counsel for the managements argued that the order passed on the review petitions is a cryptic one in as much as it does not disclose any reason for the decision taken and further that the order dated 24.03.08, which was  WP(C) No.18893 of 2008 and connected cases.

sought to be reviewed is ridden with inherent arithmetical errors which are apparent even on the face of the record of Ext.P2 and such errors in calculation would be discernible to any person having basic knowledge of even traditional mathematics. He accordingly said that the resultant situation is that the entire batch of students in different years including those who had got admission in the College long prior to the coming into force of Act 19 of 2006 would have to be saddled with the burden of paying a higher fee than due from them in terms of the report that governs the field and applies to batches before Act 19 of 2006.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) 30908/08 filed by some of the students of the 2008 batch argued that his clients did not have the opportunity either before FRC or otherwise to show that there was fair amount of profiteering in the accounts as placed by the management before FRC, and still further, that they are liable to pay only fee lesser than that suggested by the management.

5. Learned counsel for FRC stated that a statement has  WP(C) No.18893 of 2008 and connected cases.

been placed on record to the effect that what the management did was only an alternate mode of calculation.

6. The fee structure fixed by the impugned order is for the students admitted from 2007 to 2010. The managements run the colleges where MBBS course commenced in 2003. Prior to the coming into force of Act 19 of 2006 and the constitution of FRC thereunder, the managements were governed by and they followed the recommendation of Justice K.T. Thomas Commission regarding the fee structure. Obviously, the fixation of fee by FRC under Section 19 of 2006 is not therefore expected to revise the fee structure of those students who joined the colleges during years prior to Act 19 of 2006. In fact, FRC does not have the jurisdiction to do so. If that were so, the per-capita fee to be paid by the students admitted on and from the year 2007 cannot obviously be arrived at by following the methodology reflected in paragraph 12 of the proceedings of FRC, dated 24.03.2008 because, the total cost for the students arrived at as Rs.1164.48 lakhs cannot spread out over the entire students in the College from  WP(C) No.18893 of 2008 and connected cases.

2003. That should be confined only to those students who have been admitted on and from 2007. This ought to be done only after deducting the actual fee paid by students on the rolls earlier and then by dividing the remaining amount to be payable by the students taken in and from 2007. Not only that, the possible spill over of any amount by virtue of any reconciliation in the profiteering component would also have to be looked into, if at all anyone has objection. I may at once notice that the FRC decisions dated 24.03.2008 proceeded on the footing that FRC did not find any ground to disbelieve the accounts of the managements. However, taking into consideration the request on behalf of the students also in this regard, these writ petitions are ordered as follows:

i. The decisions of the Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges, issued on 24.03.08 and 09.06.08 in relation to the Colleges involved in these Writ Petitions are quashed.

ii. The Fee Regulatory Committee will hear the managements and any student who may seek an  WP(C) No.18893 of 2008 and connected cases.

opportunity of hearing, and pass fresh orders in accordance with law taking into consideration the guidelines available in Lisie (supra) and Malankara (supra) and the different binding decisions of the Apex Court.

iii. In doing so, it shall be ensured that the calculations are specifically gone into, at the time of hearing, by the member Chartered Accountant and the calculation statements shall be made available to both sides before concluding the proceedings.

iv. Needless to say, the decision that will be rendered by the Fee Regulatory Committee, being one that would fall as a decision of a public authority affecting the interest of different persons including the students and the managements even in terms of Section 4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Committee shall provide detailed reasons which shall be stated after considering all the contentions of the rival parties and such decision with reasons shall be intimated to the managements and students participating in the meetings.

v. It is clarified that all questions on merits are left open. vi. Let the decision as aforesaid be rendered as expeditiously as possible.

WP(C) No.18893 of 2008 and connected cases.

vii. It is further ordered that whatever be the fee now paid by the students and collected by the managements, that will be subject to the decision rendered by FRC following the aforesaid directions.

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge.

ttb