ORDER 1. THE MANAGEMENTS OF VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL (MEDICAL AND DENTAL) COLLEGES IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AGGRIEVED BY THE DETERMINATION OF FEE BY THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF JUSTICE R.A. JAGIRDAR, FILED A NUMBER OF PETITIONS BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 17-8-2004, THE HIGH COURT HAS REQUESTED THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE MANAGEMENTS AND RENDER ITS DECISION EXPEDITIOUSLY, AT ANY RATE, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS. WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE COMMITTEE, IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HIGH COURT, WOULD RENDER ITS DECISION ON OR BEFORE 17-11-2004. 2. REGARDING THE FEE TO BE CHARGED FROM THE STUDENTS WHO ARE GRANTED ADMISSION OR ARE TO BE GRANTED ADMISSION, THE HIGH COURT DIRECTED THAT THE MANAGEMENTS SHALL CHARGE FEE AS ALLOWED BY THE COMMITTEE, WHICH WOULD BE INTERIM, AND ABIDE BY THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE TO BE GIVEN UPON HEARING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE COLLEGES CONCERNED. 3. VARIOUS MANAGEMENTS HAVE ALSO FILED PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH ARE ALSO LISTED BEFORE US. 4. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS AND WRIT PETITIONS SHALL BE LISTED AFTER THE DISPOSAL OF THE MATTERS WHICH HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO A LARGER BENCH, SINCE SOME OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED HEREIN MAY COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE LARGER BENCH. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ONE OF THE ISSUES REGARDING THE CHARTER OF FEE, BEING CONTRARY TO T.M.A. PAIL JUDGMENT MAY ALSO HAVE TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LARGER BENCH TO WHICH MATTERS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO. 5. THE QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE AGITATED ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENTS IS THAT THE FEE FIXED BY THE COMMITTEE IS WHOLLY IRRATIONAL AND RIDICULOUSLY LOW, AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO EVEN MAKE PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO THE A EMPLOYEES IN MANY INSTITUTIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT MANY OF THE INSTITUTIONS HAD ADOPTED AN APPROACH OF NON-COOPERATION WITH THE COMMITTEE AND DID NOT SUPPLY THE REQUISITE MATERIAL WHICH WAS THEIR DUTY EVEN AS PER THE CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF ISLAMIC ACADEMY2. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT MANY OF THE INSTITUTIONS HAD ADOPTED AN APPROACH OF NON-COOPERATION WITH THE COMMITTEE AND DID NOT SUPPLY THE REQUISITE MATERIAL WHICH WAS THEIR DUTY EVEN AS PER THE CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF ISLAMIC ACADEMY2. 6. AT THIS STAGE, WE REFRAIN FROM EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE RESPECTIVE B CONTENTIONS SINCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMMITTEE, IN TERMS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT, IS SEIZED OF THE MATTER AND, FOR THE PRESENT, IT IS A QUESTION OF WAITING FOR LESS THAN TWO MONTHS. WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL BE ABLE TO DECIDE WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED BY THE HIGH COURT, NAMELY, 17-11-2004. IF FOR ANY UNAVOIDABLE REASON, THE COMMITTEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO RENDER ITS DECISION BY THE DUE DATE AND THERE ARE SOME EXTREME HARD CASES, WE PERMIT THE MANAGEMENTS IN THOSE HARD CASES TO APPROACH THE COMMITTEE WHICH WOULD CONSIDER THEIR REQUEST FOR ENHANCEMENT OF FEE AS INTERIM MEASURE TILL THE FINAL DECISION BY THE COMMITTEE. THE DECISION WOULD, OF COURSE, BE ON MERITS. 7. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SHOWS THAT SUFFICIENT GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN INDICATED THEREIN, ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE COMMITTEE HAS TO TAKE INDEPENDENT DECISION AND GRANT OPPORTUNITY TO THE INSTITUTIONS TO PLACE BEFORE IT THE REQUISITE MATERIAL AND THE VIEWPOINT. IN THIS CONNECTION, AT THIS STAGE, WE WISH TO COMMENT ONLY ON ONE OF THE CLAUSES IN THE METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR FIXING THE STRUCTURE. THAT IS CLAUSE 5 WHICH STIPULATES THAT THE AVERAGE OF THE LAST THREE YEARS FIGURES OF EXPENSES OR EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR 2002-2003, WHICHEVER WAS MORE REASONABLE, WAS CONSIDERED. THIS WAS, WHILE FIXING FEE, VALID FOR THREE YEARS FROM THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2003-2004. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR 2003-2004 WOULD ALSO BE RELEVANT WHILE FIXING THE FEE STRUCTURE AND THE COMMITTEE, WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER OF FEE IN TERMS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT, WOULD KEEP THIS FACTOR IN CONSIDERATION. 8. IN REGARD TO THE ENGINEERING COLLEGES, BY JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED F 13-9-2004 IN WRIT PETITION LD NO. 2206 OF 2004, SIMILAR DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOLLOWING THE ORDER DATED 17-8-2004. THE COMMITTEE, IN TERMS OF THE SAID ORDER, IS REQUIRED TO RENDER ITS DECISION WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM 13-9-2004. 8. IN REGARD TO THE ENGINEERING COLLEGES, BY JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED F 13-9-2004 IN WRIT PETITION LD NO. 2206 OF 2004, SIMILAR DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOLLOWING THE ORDER DATED 17-8-2004. THE COMMITTEE, IN TERMS OF THE SAID ORDER, IS REQUIRED TO RENDER ITS DECISION WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM 13-9-2004. WHAT WE HAVE SAID ABOVE IN REGARD TO MEDICAL COLLEGES WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF ENGINEERING COLLEGES. 9. FOR THE PRESENT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ISSUE ANY OTHER DIRECTION. COURT MASTERS