Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8543 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.34150 OF 2010)

  Fee Regulatory Committee                        …… Appellant

Versus

Kalol Institute of Management, Etc.           …… Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8544 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.34200 OF 2010),

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8545 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1396 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8546 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1383 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8547 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1431 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8548 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1478 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8549 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1494 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8550 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1502 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8551 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1507 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8552 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1531 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8553 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1565 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8554 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1738 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8555 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1750 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8556 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1789 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8557 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1851 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8558 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1874 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8559 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1897 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8560 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1952 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8561 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.1960 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8562 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2058 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8563 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2090 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8564 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2214 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8565 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2224 OF 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8566 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.2308 OF 2011),

2

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. These  are  appeals  by  special  leave  against  the  

impugned orders of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High  

Court.

3. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  the  respondents  are  

different  unaided  private  professional  and  educational  

colleges and institutions in the State of Gujarat.  The fees  

for  admission  to  the  private  unaided  professional  and  

educational colleges and institutions in the State of Gujarat  

are  regulated  by  the  Gujarat  Professional  Technical  

Educational  Colleges  or  Institutions  (Regulation  of  

Admission Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’),  

which came into effect on 30.04.2008.  Section 9 of the Act  

provides that the State Government shall, for the purpose of  

determining  the  fees  for  admission  of  students  in  the  

professional educational colleges or institutions, constitute  

a Fee Regulatory Committee with a retired judge of the High  

Court  nominated  by  the  State  Government  as  its  

3

Chairperson.  Section 10(1) of the Act provides that the Fee  

Regulatory Committee shall determine the fee structure for  

admission  of  students  in  the  professional  course  and  

different fee structure may be determined for admission of  

students in different professional  courses and in different  

professional  educational  colleges  or  institutions.   Section  

10(3) of the Act states that the fee structure so determined  

by the Fee Regulatory Committee shall  be binding on the  

unaided professional educational colleges or institutions for  

a period of three years and the fee so determined shall be  

applicable to a student who is admitted to a professional  

educational college or institution in that academic year and  

shall not be revised till  the completion of his professional  

course in that college or institution.  Section 11(1) of the Act  

provides that the Fee Regulatory Committee shall determine  

and  fix  the  fee  or  fees  to  be  charged  by  an  unaided  

professional  education  college  or  institution  taking  into  

consideration the factors mentioned therein and one of the  

factors  mentioned  therein  is  the  expenditure  on  

administration and maintenance.  In accordance with these  

provisions  of  the  Act,  the  Fee  Regulatory  Committee  

4

determined  the  fees  for  the  students  of  the  unaided  

professional  educational  colleges  and  institutions  in  the  

State of  Gujarat for the three academic years 2008-2009,  

2009-2010 and 2010-2011 by different orders for different  

colleges  and  institutions  passed  in  the  years  2009  and  

2010.   When  the  State  Government  accepted  the  

recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission for revision  

of the pay and allowances of the employees with effect from  

01.01.2006,  different  private  engineering  and  technical  

colleges  and  institutions  sought  revision  of  the  fees  for  

students admitted in their colleges and institutions before  

the Fee Regulatory Committee on the ground that they have  

to pay their teaching and non-teaching staff the revised pay  

and allowances as per the  recommendations of  the  Sixth  

Pay  Commission,  but  the  Fee  Regulatory  Committee  

declined to revise the fees.

4. The respondents-colleges/institutions then moved the  

High Court in different writ petitions under Article 226 of  

the  Constitution  and  by  the  impugned  orders,  the  High  

Court  held  that  the  Self-Finance  Institutions,  like  the  

institutions of the respondents, are liable to pay salary and  

5

allowances  to  its  teaching  and  non-teaching  staff  on  the  

basis  of  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Sixth  Pay  

Commission  and  the  revision  of  pay  of  Teachers  in  

accordance  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Sixth  Pay  

Commission  is  one  of  the  criteria  to  be  taken  into  

consideration for determination of fee by the Fee Regulatory  

Committee.  The High Court, relying on its orders passed in  

similar  cases,  set  aside  the  orders  of  the  Fee  Regulatory  

Committee and remitted the matters to the Fee Regulatory  

Committee  for  fresh  consideration  and  decision  in  

accordance  with  the  observations  made  in  the  impugned  

orders.  The High Court also held that if the respondents file  

undertaking  that  they  will  actually  implement  the  

recommendations made by the Sixth Pay Commission for  

their  teaching  and  non-teaching  staff,  such  additional  

burden  on  account  of  implementation  of  the  

recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission shall also be  

taken  into  consideration  while  deciding  the  fee  structure  

afresh by the Fee Regulatory Committee.  The High Court  

observed  that  till  such  orders  are  passed  by  the  Fee  

Regulatory  Committee,  the  respondents  shall  continue  to  

6

collect  the  same  fees  from the  students  as  are  collected  

presently under the orders of the Fee Regulatory Committee.  

Aggrieved by the impugned orders of  the High Court,  the  

Fee Regulatory Committee has filed these appeals.

5. The  only  contention  raised  before  us  by  Dr.  Rajiv  

Dhavan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants,  is  

that  the  direction  of  this  Court  in  Islamic  Academy  of   

Education  and  Another v.  State  of  Karnataka  and  Others  

[(2003) 6 SCC 697] is that the fee fixed by the Committee  

shall be binding for a period of three years and at the end of  

the period of three years, the institution would be at liberty  

to apply for revision and accordingly it has been provided in  

Section 10(3) of the Act that the fee structure determined by  

the  Fee  Regulatory  Committee  shall  be  binding  on  the  

unaided professional educational colleges or institutions for  

a period of three years and the fee so determined shall be  

applicable to a student who is admitted to a professional  

educational college or institution in that academic year and  

shall not be revised till  the completion of his professional  

course  in  that  college  or  institution.   He  submitted  that  

despite this statutory provision in Section 10(3) of the Act,  

7

the  High  Court  has  directed  to  revise  the  fees  for  the  

academic  years  2008-2009,  2009-2010  and  2010-2011,  

which had already been determined by the Fee Regulatory  

Committee and which could not be revised for a period of  

three years.

6. Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned counsel appearing for  

the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that unaided  

private engineering and professional colleges have to pay the  

revised pay and allowances as per the recommendations of  

the Sixth Pay Commission and, therefore, they are entitled  

to  recover  the  additional  cost  on  account  of  payment  of  

revised pay and allowances from the students by enhancing  

fees  in  accordance  with  the  judgments  of  this  Court  in  

T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and   

Others [(2002) 8 SCC 481],  Islamic  Academy of  Education   

and Another v.  State of Karnataka and Others  (supra) and  

P.A. Inamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others  

[(2005) 6 SCC 537].

7.  We have considered the submissions of the learned  

counsel for the parties and we find that Section 10(3) of the  

Act reads as follows:

8

“10(3).  The  fee  structure  so  determined  by  the  Fee Regulatory Committee shall be binding to the  unaided  professional  educational  colleges  or  institutions for a period of three years and the fee  so  determined  shall  be  applicable  to  a  student  who  is  admitted  to  a  professional  educational  college or institution in that academic year and  shall  not  be  revised  till  the  completion  of  his  professional course in that college or institution.”

8. Obviously,  the  Fee  Regulatory  Committee  cannot  

overlook the aforesaid statutory provisions in Section 10(3)  

of the Act that the fee structure so determined by the Fee  

Regulatory  Committee  shall  be  binding  on  the  unaided  

professional educational colleges or institutions for a period  

of three years and the fee so determined shall be applicable  

to a student who is admitted to a professional educational  

college or institution in that academic year and shall not be  

revised till the completion of his professional course in that  

college or institution.  The High Court, therefore, could not  

have directed revision of the fees already fixed by the Fee  

Regulatory Committee for  the  academic years 2008-2009,  

2009-2010  and  2010-2011  contrary  to  the  aforesaid  

statutory  provisions.   Nonetheless,  the  unaided  private  

professional  and  technical  colleges  or  institutions  were  

entitled to recover the extra cost on account of payment of  

9

revised  pay  and  allowances  to  the  teaching  and  non-

teaching staff through the fees collected from the students  

and this could be done only by enhancing the fees from the  

students for the academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and  

2013-2014 and for period of three years thereafter.  Exactly  

how much of this cost would be recovered through the fees  

collected from the  students during the  first  period of  the  

three years and how much of this cost would be recovered  

through fees collected from the students during the second  

period of three years can only be appropriately worked out  

by the Fee Regulatory Committee keeping in mind both the  

interest of the colleges/institutions and the students.

9. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the  

High Court and direct that the increase in cost suffered by  

the  respondents-colleges/institutions  on  account  of  the  

higher pay and allowances payable to the teaching and non-

teaching staff on the basis of the recommendations of the  

Sixth Pay Commission will be taken into consideration by  

the Fee Regulatory Committee while determining the fees for  

the academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014  

and subsequent period of three years in accordance with the  

10

provisions  of  the  Act  and  the  observations  made  herein.  

These appeals are allowed.  There shall be no order as to  

costs.

.……………………….J.                                                             (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.                                                             (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, October 11, 2011.   

11