AKSHAY S/O ASHOK DHOBLEY Vs. MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, WANI ROAD, MHASRUL, NASHIK THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the Direction No.3 of 2007 issued by the respondent no.2 - ViceChancellor, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik on 16/6/2007, enhancing the registration and eligibility fees from Rs.8,000/ to Rs.30,000/ for admission of the students in private Dental colleges with effect from the academic session 2007-08. The petitioners were admitted to Dental course in a private college prior to cut off date of 31/5/2007 and all of them paid registration and eligibility fees of Rs.8,000/, which were then prevailing as per the Direction no.2 of 2007. They were required to pay the enhanced fee of Rs.30,000/ as per the directive No.3 of 2007 which was brought into force on 16/6/2007.

(2.) In the light of the aforesaid factual position, we proposed to decide the question of competency of the ViceChancellor to issue Direction No.3 of 2007, in exercise of power under Sub Sec. (8) of Sec. 16 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1998"). A specific question was put to Shri Abhijit Deshpande, the learned Counsel representing the University as to whether it is permissible in law to the ViceChancellor to repeatedly exercise this power, in the absence of there being any statute or ordinance prevailing on the subject, more particularly when the power stood exhausted by issuance of Direction No.2 of 2007. We adjourned the matter and granted him time to address this Court on this issue. He has accordingly placed before us the earlier Directions issued in exercise of the same powers.

(3.) According to Shri Abhijit Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the University, the ViceChancellor was competent to issue such direction and such repeated exercise is permissible. He has also invited our attention to the justification recorded in the minutes of the meeting of Registration and Eligibility Fees Revenue Committee held on 13/6/2007. We reproduce the said justification as under :