KRITI BHAKUNI Vs. ARMY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra -court appeal impugns the order dated 9th September, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5842/2014 filed by the appellants, of refusing interim stay of the Communication dated 23rd May, 2014 of the respondent no.1 College (impugned in the writ petition) hiking the tuition fee by 51%, though however permitting the appellants to pay 50% of the fee due by 25th September, 2014, 25% with 6% interest by 15th December, 2014 and the balance also with 6% interest by 15th March, 2015. The counsel for the respondents appeared on advance notice and with consent, we heard the counsels finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) THE challenge before the learned Single Judge to such increase in tuition fee was on the ground of the same being in violation of Section 6(3) of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non -Exploitative Fee and other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 inasmuch as no prior permission had been taken from the State Fee Regulatory Committee. However, when the petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 9th September, 2014, the counsel for the respondent no.1 College handed over a copy of the letter dated 3rd October, 2013 of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), Directorate of Higher Education to the Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (respondent no.3 herein) stating that the newly constituted State Fee Regulatory Committee vide its recommendation dated 3rd May, 2013 had recommended increase in fee for the wards of Army personnel from Rs.1,50,000/ - to Rs.3,00,000/ -, to bring the same in parity with the fee for General Category students, for the academic session 2008 -09. It was further informed that the GNCTD had accepted the said recommendation of the State Fee Regulatory Committee. The counsel for the appellants / writ petitioners however contended that the said Fee Regulatory Committee was required to act by Notification and not by a communication. However, the learned Single Judge, observing that the Notification would have to be produced by the GNCTD, and in view of the recommendation of the State Fee Regulatory Committee having been accepted by the GNCTD, held that no case for grant of stay of increase in fee had been made out, though notice of the writ petition was issued.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellants / writ petitioners has argued, i) that the GNCTD has failed to exercise its powers under Section 6(3) of the Act aforesaid to refer back the matter to the State Fee Regulatory Committee; ii) that the increase in fee is arbitrary and beyond the maximum permissible cap of 30%; iii) that the appellants / writ petitioners cannot be equated with General Category students as the fee of the wards of Army personnel is to be subsidized by the Army Welfare Education Society; iv) that the appellants are facing acute hardship on account of such a phenomenal increase.