BHUPESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These bunch of writ petitions have been filed by the students of Babu Banarsi Das National Institute of Technology and Management challenging the fee structure applicable to them. All the students have deposited their fee for the first year of Bachelor of Engineering Course (in short B.E. Course) as per the Government Order dated 30.7.1998 and also for the second year in the like manner. The challenge has been made to the fee structure when the petitioners were pursuing the course in the third year.

(2.) The petitioners have disputed the authority of the State Government in issuing the Government Order dated 30.7.1998 enhancing the fee for the unaided Technical Education Institutions being run by the private sector and. in particular the fee which is being charged by the institution in question. The challenge has been made on the ground that the State was having no authority to enhance the fee, vide Government Order dated 30.7.1998 as against the fee prescribed by the earlier Government Order dated 11.11.1997 and that the fee structure framed by the State Government was not in consonance with the Resolution dated 18th March, 1997 which propounded the policy on fee fixation for unaided Technical Institutions in private sector. It is also being asserted that the fee so prescribed is not in accordance with the Regulations known as All India Council for Technical Education (Opening of New Technical Institution, Courses or New Programmes and Recommendations of the Increase of Seats for Qualified Incumbents in the Courses and New Programme) Regulations, 1994, and in particular Regulation 7(3) of the aforesaid Regulations, 1994. The State Level Committee so constituted has not been constituted in accordance with the Resolution dated 18th March, 1997 that once the fee having been fixed by the State Government on 11th November, 1997, the said fee could not have been enhanced before lapse of a period of three years minimum. Further argument is that such an exorbitant fixation of fee within a period of 8 months from 1lth November, 1997 was wholly uncalled for and without any authority. An effort has been made to bring an element of arbitrariness in the action of the State Government in enhancing the fee by the Government Order dated 30.7.1998 on the aforesaid grounds.

(3.) On the principle laid down in the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and others, (1992) 3 SCC 666 and the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishnan J.P. and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1993) 1 SCC 64 and in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1996) 5 SCC 8, it has been stressed that the fee fixation has not been done in accordance with the directives issued by the Apex Court.