SHARADCHANDRIKA SURESH PATIL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed for writ of certiorari and/or direction in the like nature in respect of decision dated 6.9.2005 given by respondent No. 2 - Shikshan Shulka Samiti. The petitioner is conducting B. Pharmacy course and the decision was in respect of fee structure of this course of college of the petitioner. As per the decision of respondent No. 2, for academic year 2003-04 on the date of petition, the petitioner was allowed to collect Rs. 21,100/- as a fee from each student for each year. This fee was fixed as Rs. 23,000/- for academic year 2004-05. It is the case of petitioner that it was necessary to fix the fee as Rs. 40,000/- per student per year. The civil application is filed for seeking amendment in the petition as during the pendency of the petition, this court had directed respondent No. 2 to reconsider the claims of petitioner and accordingly, respondent No. 2 has fixed the fees which is increased. As the fee is not increased as per the expectation of petitioner, the amendment application is filed and new prayers are made. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) The petitioner is conducting the course since the year 1992 at village Chopda, District Jalgaon. It is non aided private college. Respondent No. 2, the Samiti, the Committee is constituted as per the directions given by Supreme Court in the case reported as 2003 (6) SCC 697 [Islamic Academy Education and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.]. The Apex Court has given directions in this case to see that effect is given to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case reported as (2002) 8 SCC 481 [T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.]. The procedure which is required to be followed by respondent No. 2 is given in Islamic Academy Education's case cited supra by the Apex Court and it is as under :-

(3.) Respondent No. 2 evolved procedure and ascertained the matters which need to be considered for fixation of fees. Accordingly, initially the fee was fixed for the year 2003-04. Many institutions were feeling aggrieved by the fee so fixed and they had approached this Court. This Court then gave direction to respondent No. 2 to consider all the objections and give proper hearing to the institutions. This decision was taken up to Supreme Court, but Supreme Court directed to follow the decision given by this Court. The objections of various institutions including the institution of petitioner were heard. The matters which can be considered are quoted after hearing the objections and they are as follows :-