SARVA VIDHYALAYA KELAVANI MANDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides are finally heard. As in all these petitions, facts are more or less same and common questions are involved they are being dealt with by this common order.

(2.) The short facts are as under : (i) All the petitioners are self-financed and unaided colleges imparting education for M.B.A, M.C.A and other professional courses. The concerned petitioners-colleges are affiliated to various University of Gujarat State, namely, Gujarat University, Saurashtra University and North Gujarat University, for admissions to courses of M.B.A. and M.C.A. in these group of petitions, there were two Centralised Admission Committees with which the subject-matter of petitions related to, i.e. one was for the colleges affiliated to Gujarat University and the other was for the colleges affiliated to North Gujarat University, Patan and Saurashtra University, Rajkot. The petitioners of Spl.C.A. Nos. 10832 and 17823 of 2003 are the institutions affiliated to Gujarat University whereas petitioners of Spl.C.A. Nos. 500 and 832 of 2004 and 17545 of 2003 are affiliated to North Gujarat University or Saurashtra University, as the case may be. It appears for the colleges affiliated to North Gujarat University and Saurashtra University as per Cl. VIII the fee structure declared by the Centralised Admission Committee was as under :

(3.) Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioners in all the petitions raised contentions that as per the regulations framed by the A.I.C.T.E,, the State Level Committee has no authority to prescribe the development foe and only the A.I.C.T.E. has power to prescribe the development fee. For supporting his contention he submitted that as per regulations framed by the A.I.C.T.E., the State Level Committee has power to decide only the tuition fee and not the development fee. He further submitted that as per Notification dated 24-4-2002 of the A.I.C.T.E., which has been issued in supersession of earlier regulations, "fee" means tuition fee and other fees, but does not include "development fee". He submitted that the power to fix the development fee is only with the A.I.C.T.E.. For such purpose, he relied upon the guidelines issued by Govt. of India providing for modalities for determination of fees and development fees. On behalf of A.I.C.T.E,-respondent No. 4 herein, the affidavit-in-reply is filed by Dr. Ashok Kumar, Regional Officer, A.I.C.T.E. and in the said affidavit at Para 2 it has been stated as under :