Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1487 (ALL)

RAMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-05-06

DILIP GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006 has been filed by Rama Educational Society, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) and Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Dental College’) for quashing the order dated 13th October, 2005 passed by the State Government by which a direction has been issued to them to charge Rs. 1.10 lacs only as fees per annum from the students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04 for the entire duration of the four years course since Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 that had been filed by them for setting aside the orders dated 15th July, 2003 and 2nd August, 2003 issued by the State Government for fixation of fees and constitution of the Committee had been dismissed on 27th May, 2005. Subsequently, an amendment application was moved by the petitioners for adding prayers for quashing the decision taken by Justice Sareen Committee on 14th February, 2006 refusing to consider the fee structure of the Dental College for the students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04 and for issuance of a direction to the said Committee to decide the fee structure for the said Academic Session. This amendment application was allowed by the order dated 4th September, 2009. 2. Writ Petition No. 21451 of 2009 has been filed by thirty four students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Dental College in the Academic Session 2003-04 for a direction upon the Dental College to issue the marksheet/certificate upon completion of the course and to refund the excess payment of fees as well as the security money with interest. They have also sought a direction for making payment of stipend for Internship period from 1st April, 2008 to 31st March, 2009 and for giving the Internship Completion Certificate. Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006 3. It is stated that the Society established the Dental College under the Self Financing Scheme. The State Government, by the order dated 27th September, 1997, fixed the fee structure for B.D.S. Course in Dental Colleges under the Self Financing Scheme for a period of three years from the Academic Session 1997-98 to 1999-2000. Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006 3. It is stated that the Society established the Dental College under the Self Financing Scheme. The State Government, by the order dated 27th September, 1997, fixed the fee structure for B.D.S. Course in Dental Colleges under the Self Financing Scheme for a period of three years from the Academic Session 1997-98 to 1999-2000. This order was challenged by the Dental College by filing Writ Petition No. 35610 of 1997 and the Court by the order dated 27th September, 1997 stayed the operation of the said order. 4. A Corum of 11 Judges of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , in the judgment and order dated 31st October, 2002, examined, amongst others, the fixation of fees in private unaided non-minority educational institutions and, while considering whether the educational Institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure, made the following observations : “In such professional unaided institutions, the Management will have the right to select teachers as per the qualifications and eligibility conditions laid down by the State/University subject to adoption of a rational procedure of selection. A rational fee structure should be adopted by the Management, which would not be entitled to charge a capitation fee. Appropriate machinery can be devised by the State or university to ensure that no capitation fee is charged and that there is no profiteering, though a reasonable surplus for the furtherance of education is permissible. Conditions granting recognition or affiliation can broadly cover academic and educational matters including the welfare of students and teachers.” 5. It is for compliance of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court that an Office Memorandum dated 15th July, 2003 was issued by the State Government. This provides that the Dental Colleges shall charge maximum fees of Rs. 1.10 lacs per annum per student admitted to the B.D.S Course from the Academic Session 2003-04. This amount shall include all the charges except Hostel Fees, Examination Fees and Security amount. However, for the students admitted in the earlier Academic Sessions, the earlier arrangement shall continue. This provides that the Dental Colleges shall charge maximum fees of Rs. 1.10 lacs per annum per student admitted to the B.D.S Course from the Academic Session 2003-04. This amount shall include all the charges except Hostel Fees, Examination Fees and Security amount. However, for the students admitted in the earlier Academic Sessions, the earlier arrangement shall continue. It further provides that in case the Dental Colleges want to charge higher fees, then a proposal should be submitted with justification before the permanent Committee to be constituted under the said Office Memorandum and the State Government will then take a decision on the basis of the recommendation made by the Committee. The State Government constituted the permanent Committee by the order dated 2nd August, 2003. 6. The judgment of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation led to the filing of various writ petitions and ultimately a Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court was constituted to clarify the doubts and anomalies, if any. The Corum of Five Judges of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, (2003) 6 SCC 697 , delivered the judgment on 14th August, 2003. The Supreme Court directed that in order to give effect to the judgment in TMA Pai Foundation, the respective State Government/Authorities shall set up, in each State, a Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge, a Chartered Accountant, a representative of Medical Council of India and the Secretary of the State Government, In-charge of Medical Education but the Committee will be free to nominate/co-opt another independent person of repute so that the total number of members of the Committee shall not exceed five. Each Educational Institution was required to place before the Committee, well in advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure with all the relevant documents and books of account for its scrutiny. The Committee was required to decide whether the higher fees proposed by the Institution was justified or not and the Committee was also at liberty to approve the fee structure or propose some other fee structure to be charged by the Institution. The fee fixed by the Committee was to be binding for a period of three years, at the end of which period, the Institution was at liberty to apply for revision. The fee fixed by the Committee was to be binding for a period of three years, at the end of which period, the Institution was at liberty to apply for revision. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows : “So far as the first question is concerned, in our view the majority judgment is very clear. There can be no fixing of a rigid fee structure by the Government. Each institute must have the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. They must also be able to generate surplus which must be used for the betterment and growth of that educational institution. In paragraph 56 of the judgment it has been categorically laid down that the decision on the fees to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational institutions that do not seek and which are not dependent upon any funds from the Government. Each institute will be entitled to have its own fee structure. The fee structure for each institute must be fixed keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities available, the investments made, salaries paid to the teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or betterment of the institution etc. Of course there can be no profiteering and capitation fees cannot be charged. It thus needs to be emphasized that as per the majority judgment imparting of education is essentially charitable in nature. Thus the surplus/profit that can be generated must be only for the benefit/use of that educational institution. Profits/surplus cannot be diverted for any other use or purpose and cannot be used for personal gain or for any other business or enterprise. As, at present, there are statutes/regulations which govern the fixation of fees and as this Court has, not yet considered the validity of those statutes/regulations, we direct that in order to give effect to the judgment in TMA PAI’s case the respective State Governments/concerned authority shall set up, in each State, a committee headed by a retired High Court Judge who shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State. The other member, who shall be nominated by the Judge, should be a Chartered Accountant of repute. The other member, who shall be nominated by the Judge, should be a Chartered Accountant of repute. A representative of the Medical Council of India (in short “MCI”) or the All India Council for Technical Education (in short “AICTE”), depending on the type of institution, shall also be a member. The Secretary of the State Government in charge of Medical Education or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall be a member and Secretary of the Committee. The Committee should be free to nominate/co-opt another independent person of repute, so that the total number of members of the Committee shall not exceed five. Each educational Institute must place before this Committee, well in advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure. Alongwith the proposed fee structure all relevant documents and books of accounts must also be produced before the Committee for their scrutiny. The Committee shall then decide whether the fees proposed by that institute are justified and are not profiteering or charging capitation fee. The Committee will be at liberty to approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee which can be charged by the institute. The fee fixed by the committee shall be binding for a period of three years, at the end of which period the institute would be at liberty to apply for revision. Once fees are fixed by the Committee, the institute cannot charge either directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. If any other amount is charged, under any other head or guise e.g. donations, the same would amount to charging of capitation fee. The Governments/appropriate authorities should consider framing appropriate regulations, if not already, framed, whereunder if it is found that an institution is charging capitation fees or profiteering that institution can be appropriately penalised and also face the prospect of losing its recognition/affiliation.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 was filed by the Society and the Dental College for quashing the Office Memorandum dated 15th July, 2003 as also the order dated 2nd August, 2003 by which the Committee was constituted. Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 was filed by the Society and the Dental College for quashing the Office Memorandum dated 15th July, 2003 as also the order dated 2nd August, 2003 by which the Committee was constituted. The Court, as an interim measure, on 28th August, 2003, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education, ordered that the effect and operation of the orders dated 15th July, 2003 and 2nd August, 2003 issued by the State Government shall remain stayed and the Institutions shall be permitted to collect the fee which they were charging in the previous year. 8. Subsequently, in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education, the State Government, by the notification dated 20th February, 2004, constituted a Committee headed by Justice (Retired) P.K. Sareen. 9. In the meantime, Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 came up for final hearing and it was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 27th May, 2005. 10. Upon dismissal of Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 on 27th May, 2005, the State Government informed the Director General, Medical Education & Training by the communication dated 13th October, 2005 that the fee structure fixed by the Circular dated 15th July, 2003 became effective and, therefore, for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 in the B.D.S. Course, the Dental College shall charge only Rs. 1.10 lacs per student per year for the entire four years course and if excess fees had been charged, it should be refunded or adjusted towards the fees for the subsequent years. Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006 has been filed by the Society and the Dental College for quashing this communication dated 13th October, 2005. 11. It is stated that the Dental College submitted the fee structure before the Committee for the Academic Session 2004-05 for Rs. 2.25 lacs per student per year but the fee structure for the Dental College for the Academic Session 2004-05 was fixed by the Committee at Rs. 2.05 lacs per annum per student. 12. 11. It is stated that the Dental College submitted the fee structure before the Committee for the Academic Session 2004-05 for Rs. 2.25 lacs per student per year but the fee structure for the Dental College for the Academic Session 2004-05 was fixed by the Committee at Rs. 2.05 lacs per annum per student. 12. The Dental College also claims to have sent a representation dated 27th December, 2005 by Registered Post to the Fee Fixation Committee headed by Justice P.K. Sareen to decide the fee structure for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 as according to it, this was also required to be dealt with by the Committee in view of the directions given by the Court on 27th May, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003. The Committee headed by Justice P.K. Sareen met on 14th February, 2006 to consider the case of four Colleges including the Dental College for fixing the fee structure of the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04. The Committee, after noticing that it had been constituted on 20th February, 2004 and under the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education it could examine the fee structure for the next Academic Session, decided that it had no jurisdiction to make any recommendation for the fee structure of the earlier Academic Session 2003-04. The Committee also examined the letter dated 6th February, 2006 sent by the Dental College which was actually addressed to the Director General, Medical Education and Training with a copy to the Committee, in which information regarding the filing of Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006 was given. The Committee decided not to take any action on this letter. 13. An amendment application was then filed by the Dental College on 27th September, 2007 for adding prayers for setting aside the decision taken by the Committee headed by Justice P.K. Sareen on 14th February, 2006 and for issuance of a direction to the said Committee to decide the fee structure for the Academic Session 2003-04. This application was allowed by the order dated 4th September, 2009. 14. This application was allowed by the order dated 4th September, 2009. 14. An application has also been filed by the Dental College in January, 2009 for deleting respondent No. 2-Fee Fixation Committee headed by Justice P.K. Sareen and substituting it by “Admission and Fees Regulation Committee” since such a Committee has now been constituted under the U.P. Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees), Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for fixation of fees. This application was allowed by the order dated 17th November, 2009. 15. The Parents Association, on the other hand, asked the Dental College to refund the excess amount of fee charged from the students admitted to the BDS Course in the Academic Session 2003-04. Writ Petition No. 21451 of 2009 16. Writ Petition No. 21451 of 2009 has been filed by 34 students of the Dental College who had been admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04. It is stated by them that the Dental College charged Rs. 2.07 lacs per student per year towards the fees in view of interim order 28th August, 2003 passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 even though in terms of the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003, the Dental College could charge Rs. 1.10 lacs per annum per student only towards the fees, but on dismissal of the said writ petition on 27th May, 2005, the Dental College was required to refund the excess fees amount and/or adjust the excess amount towards the fees for the Academic Sessions 2004-05 and 2005-06. It is for this reason that State Government had also issued the order dated 13th October, 2005 directing the Dental College to charge only Rs.1.10 lacs as fees from the students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04 and refund the excess fees collected by it. It is also asserted by the students that the Fee Fixation Committee headed by Justice P.K. Sareen rightly rejected the proposal of the Dental College for fixing the fees for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 since it had no jurisdiction to entertain any matter relating to this Academic Session 2003-04. It is also asserted by the students that the Fee Fixation Committee headed by Justice P.K. Sareen rightly rejected the proposal of the Dental College for fixing the fees for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 since it had no jurisdiction to entertain any matter relating to this Academic Session 2003-04. It is also stated by the students that after completing their B.D.S. Course on 31st March, 2008, they completed their internship which began from 1st April, 2008 and continued upto 31st March, 2009, but no stipend was paid during the internship period by the Dental College and even the certificates have not been provided to the students by the Dental College. Writ Petition No. 21451 of 2009 has, accordingly, been filed for a direction upon the Dental College to refund the excess fees and make payment of the stipend with interest and issue the certificates and other documents. SUBMISSIONS 17. I have heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the Society and the Dental College, Sri Satya Narain Shukla for the Parents Association (respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006), and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the students, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 21451 of 2009. Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned Standing Counsel has made submissions on behalf of the State. 18. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Dental College made the following submissions : 1. Earlier, the State Government by the order dated 27th September, 1997 fixed the fee structure for B.D.S. Course in the Dental College under self-financing scheme for a period of three years from the session 1997-98 to 1999-2000, which order was challenged by the Dental College in Writ Petition No. 35610 of 1997. Subsequently, in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 was issued fixing fees for the students admitted in the B.D.S. Course from the Academic Session 2003-04 at Rs.1.10 lacs per annum and by the Government Order dated 2nd August, 2003, the State Government constituted the Committee which was required to consider the proposal submitted by the Colleges, if they wanted a higher fee structure. However, in Islamic Academy of Education, the Supreme Court directed for constitution of a Committee in each State to be headed by a retired High Court Judge and, therefore, as the Government Orders dated 15th July, 2003 and 2nd August, 2003 were not in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, as clarified in Islamic Academy of Education, Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 was filed by the Society and the Dental College in which an interim order was passed on 28th August, 2003 staying the operation of the two orders. The Committee headed by Justice P.K. Sareen was constituted and the Dental College submitted the fee structure before the Committee for the Academic Session 2004-05 with the fee structure for the earlier two Academic Years namely 2002-03 and 2003-04. The Dental College did not challenge the judgment and order dated 27th May, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 since it was observed that the petitioners were at liberty to place their grievance alongwith the justification and materials before the Committee. The order dated 13th October, 2005 issued by the State Government after dismissal of the Writ Petition 37525 of 2003 on 27th May, 2005 for payment of fees as per the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 and for refund of the excess fee deserves to be set aside as it proceeds on the assumption that Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 had been dismissed by the Court on merits affirming the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 when this is not correct since the petition had not been dismissed on merits but had been dismissed on the ground that the Dental College could submit the proposal before the Committee. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, as clarified subsequently by the judgment in Islamic Academy of Education, each Institution has a right to fix its own fee structure in accordance with the directions issued by the Court and so the Government has no role in fixing the fee structure. The issuance of the Government Order dated 13th October, 2005 providing that the earlier Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 has become operative is, therefore, not justified. 2. The issuance of the Government Order dated 13th October, 2005 providing that the earlier Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 has become operative is, therefore, not justified. 2. Since Justice P.K. Sareen Committee did not determine the fee structure for the students admitted in the Dental College in the Academic Session 2003-04 and as the Dental College had charged Rs.2.07 lacs per student as fees for the Academic Session 2003-04 and Justice P.K. Sareen Committee had fixed Rs.2.05 lacs per student for the Academic Session 2004-05, the students, at best, would be entitled to the refund of the difference of Rs. 2000/- per annum and the Dental College cannot be compelled to charge Rs.1.10 lacs as fees from the students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04. 3. Even otherwise, in terms of the judgment and order dated 27th May, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003, the fee structure for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 has yet to be determined by Justice P.K. Sareen Committee or the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 and in support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 28th May, 2009 rendered in Special Appeal No. 664 of 2008 (Parent Association for Welfare of Students v. ERA’s Lucknow Medical College and Hospitals and others). 19. Sri Satya Narain Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Parent Association has made the following submissions : 1. Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006 is not maintainable inasmuch as it has been filed for the same cause of action as Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 had been filed, namely fixation of fees for the students admitted in the Dental College in the Academic Session 2003-04 and upon dismissal of Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 on 27th May, 2005, the order dated 13th October, 2006 was rightly issued for ensuring compliance of the order dated 15th July, 2003 which had been challenged in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003. 2. The writ petition filed by the Dental College to challenge the consequential order issued by the Government for implementation of the earlier Government Order, when the challenge made to it in the writ petition failed, is not maintainable. 3. 2. The writ petition filed by the Dental College to challenge the consequential order issued by the Government for implementation of the earlier Government Order, when the challenge made to it in the writ petition failed, is not maintainable. 3. In terms of the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 the Dental College did not submit any proposal for fee structure before the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 2nd August, 2003 and the Dental College had decided to challenge the aforesaid Government Order by filing the writ petition. The College, therefore, cannot now be permitted to file the proposed fee structure. 4. No liberty was given to the Dental College in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 to file a representation before the Committee for fixation of fees for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 and on the contrary the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 was upheld holding that no interference was required under Article 226 of the Constitution since the Government Order itself gave liberty to the Colleges to place material before the Committee for charging higher fees than that fixed under the Government Order. The Court also noticed that the Dental College had not submitted any proposed fee structure before the Committee headed by Justice P.K. Sareen in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education (supra) and any proposal submitted by the Dental College before the Government is of no consequence. The decision rendered in Special Appeal No. 664 of 2008 is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. The fees fixed for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2004-05 cannot be made applicable to the students admitted in the earlier Academic Session 2003-04. 6. The decision rendered in Special Appeal No. 664 of 2008 is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. The fees fixed for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2004-05 cannot be made applicable to the students admitted in the earlier Academic Session 2003-04. 6. According to the decision of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education, the Colleges have to submit the proposal well before the start of the Academic Session and in the instant case it is an admitted fact that the Dental College had not submitted any proposed fee structure to the Justice P.K. Sareen Committee for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 before the start of the Academic Session and it is only after the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 on 27th May, 2005 that the Dental College filed a proposed fee structure before Justice Sareen Committee which was rightly rejected by it. The Dental College cannot, therefore, take benefit of its own laxity in not filing a proper representation before the Committee. 20. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Dental College in the Academic Session 2003-04 supported the submissions made by Sri Satya Narain Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Parents Association and also submitted that upon dismissal of Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 on 27th May, 2005, the Government was justified in directing the Dental College to charge only that much fees as was provided under the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 and the students were entitled for the refund of the excess fees deposited by them with interest. He, therefore, submitted that non-payment of stipend to the students, retention of the certificates and demand of further fees from the students was wholly unjustified and the students deserve to be adequately compensated for the loss. It is also his submission that the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 664 of 2008 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 21. It is also his submission that the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 664 of 2008 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 21. Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted, on the basis of the averments made in the short counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006, that the Committee constituted by the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 can examine and decide the fee structure of the Dental College for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04. DISCUSSION 22. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 23. The main thrust of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties is on the judgment dated 27th May, 2005 rendered in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 that was filed by the Royal Society of Education Academy (which is now named as Rama Educational Society) and the Rama Dental College. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Dental College, liberty was given in the said judgment to the Dental College to file the proposed fee structure before the Committee, while according to the learned counsel appearing for the Parents Association and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the students, such liberty was not given. The stand of Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned Standing Counsel for the State is that the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 can examine the fee structure of the students admitted in the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04. 24. It is not in dispute that the fee structure applicable to the students admitted to the B.D.S Course in the Dental College in the Academic Session 2003-04 shall continue for the entire period of the course which is of four years. 25. What was in challenge in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 was the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 which determined the fee structure for students admitted in the Dental College from the Academic Session 2003-04. According to the State, this Government Order was issued to give effect to the decision of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation. 25. What was in challenge in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 was the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 which determined the fee structure for students admitted in the Dental College from the Academic Session 2003-04. According to the State, this Government Order was issued to give effect to the decision of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation. The Government Order provides that the Dental Colleges shall charge maximum fees of Rs.1.10 lacs per annum for each student admitted to the B.D.S. Course from the Academic Session 2003-04, but if the Dental Colleges wish to charge higher fees, then they should submit a proposal with justification before the permanent Committee, which Committee was subsequently constituted by the Government Order dated 2nd August, 2003. It would, thus, be seen from a perusal of the aforesaid Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 that the Government had actually fixed the fees that was to be charged by the Dental Colleges from the students admitted in the B.D.S. Course from the Academic Session 2003-04 and the only liberty that was given to the Dental Colleges, in case they wanted to charge higher fees, was to submit a proposal before the Committee with justification and the relevant documents, which proposal was to be examined by the Committee to find out whether the proposed fee structure was in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court or whether it was for the purpose of profiteering. The Government was then to decide the fee structure on the basis of the recommendation made by the Committee. 26. The Dental College and the Society challenged the aforesaid Government Orders dated 15th July, 2003 and 2nd August, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 on the ground that in terms of the decisions of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy of Education, the State Government had no authority to fix fees of private Institutions which were free to fix their own fee structure with the restriction that they cannot charge capitation fees. 27. The stand of the State Government in the said writ petition was that for the students who had taken admission in private Medical/Dental Colleges in the Academic Session 2002-03 or earlier, the old system was to continue and the impugned Government Order was issued for the students admitted from the Academic Session 2003-04. 27. The stand of the State Government in the said writ petition was that for the students who had taken admission in private Medical/Dental Colleges in the Academic Session 2002-03 or earlier, the old system was to continue and the impugned Government Order was issued for the students admitted from the Academic Session 2003-04. Under the subsequent Government Order dated 20th February, 2004 the Committee was constituted in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and the Dental College could have filed the proposed fee structure, if they wanted a higher fee structure. 28. It is on a consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Dental College and the State Government that the Court in paragraph 13 of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 posed the following crucial question: “On the basis of rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, crucial question arises for consideration whether the impugned Government Orders dated 15.7.2003 and 2.8.2003 fixing the fee structure of Private Unaided Professional Institutions of M.B.B.S. and Dental Courses with liberty to them to enhance their fee structure higher than fixed by the Government by placing its justification before the Standing Committee constituted under the aforesaid Government Order, is any way contrary to the decision of T.M.A.Pai Foundation case as subsequently clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Islamic Academic of Education case or not ? Putting the question in differently as to whether the impugned Government Orders run contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and impairing any right of the institution in question with regard to their freedom in fixing their fee structure, if so what relief the petitioners are entitled?” 29. The Court then examined the decision of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and in this context, in paragraph 18, observed : “Thus on a close analysis and scrutiny of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment, it is clear that the Government was not completely debarred from fixing any fee structure to the Private unaided professional institutions and the power and authority of the Govt. was not expressly excluded by the aforesaid decision. was not expressly excluded by the aforesaid decision. However, while doing so, the Government was restrained/prohibited for fixing of rigid fee structure, as the institute has been given freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. Besides this, since the fee structure has to be determined by the Committee headed by the retired Judge of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice of that State and the educational institutions are required to place before the Committee well in advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure alongwith the relevant documents and books of account and the Committee has been authorized to examine their fee structure and determine the proposal made by the institutions in the light of fact whether the fees proposed by the institutions are justified and are not profiteering or charging capitation fee. The Committee has also been authorised to approve or to propose some other different fee structure than proposed by the institution itself, which is to be charged by the institutions and binding upon them. These observations clearly lead to a conclusion without leaving any room of doubt that the institutions are not enjoying absolute freedom in fixing their fee structure and charge any fees whatsoever they like on their own sweet-will, rather their freedom has to be reasonably controlled and regulated by the said Committee in the light of justification provided by them on the basis of documents produced before the Committee for determination of fees to be charges by them. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the institutions are free to fix its own fee structure in absolute term without any restriction, is wholly misconceived, misplaced and accordingly liable to be rejected.” 30. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the institutions are free to fix its own fee structure in absolute term without any restriction, is wholly misconceived, misplaced and accordingly liable to be rejected.” 30. It is in the light of the aforesaid conclusions drawn by the Court from the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation that the Court examined the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 and in paragraph 19 of the judgment observed : “At this juncture it is necessary to point out that from the perusal of the Government Order dated 15.7.2003 and, it is clear that the Government has prescribed fee structure with liberty to the institutions to fix higher fee structure provided that they place their justification before the standing Committee constituted under the aforesaid Government Order dated 2.8.2003, which has now been substituted by another committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Sareen vide Government Order dated 20.2.2004, whereby the Committee has been constituted in consonance of the directions made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education case. Since the earlier Committee constituted by the Government Order dated 2.8.2003 stood substituted by another committee by subsequent Government Order dated 20.2.2004. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners for quashing of the Government Order dated 2.8.2003 has been rendered infructuous. In case the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the aforesaid fixation of fee structure, they are at liberty to place their grievance alongwith justification and materials before the Committee constituted for the purpose to decide the issue. In such a situation it cannot be said at all that at the moment the petitioners right has been finally determined, which has caused any prejudice and adversely affected the right of the petitioners by the Government Order dated 15.7.2003. The aforesaid Government Orders were issued prior to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered on 14.8.2003 in Islamic Academy of Education case and since by subsequent Government Order dated 20.2.2004 new Committee has been constituted by replacing earlier committee, therefore, on such subsequent development, the Government Order dated 15.7.2003 has also lost its efficacy in the original term in which it was, rather it should be viewed in the changed scenario by reading the same with necessary modifications. It is also note worthy to mention here that the aforesaid Government order contains the policy decision of the Government, based on guidelines issued by the Government of India/ Central Government. Apart from this, the matter was also discussed by the Committee constituted in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court and headed by the Secretary, Medical Education with the representative of the Management of Medical and Dental colleges. After due consideration of recommendation of the Committee and the proposal received from the management of private Medical/Dental Colleges the Government has issued the aforesaid Government Order in superseding the earlier Government Orders issued in this regard. Normally, this Court does not interfere in its writ jurisdiction in the policy decision taken by the Government unless it is found that such policy decision was taken either on irrelevant consideration or runs contrary to the statutory provisions of law. The petitioners could not point out that the aforesaid policy decision of the Government is either based on irrelevant consideration or it is contrary to any statutory provisions of law. The submission made by the petitioner that the policy contained in the aforesaid Government Order runs contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education case, as held earlier, is misconceived and misplaced.” (emphasis supplied) 31. It is for this reason that the Court observed that the contention of the Dental College that the policy contained in the aforesaid Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education, is misconceived and misplaced. The Court then, in paragraph 20 of the judgment, observed : “Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of considered opinion that since the petitioners right has not yet been impaired finally by the aforesaid Government Order and on other hand they are at liberty to place their grievance alongwith justification and materials for charging any higher fees than fixed by the Government in the aforesaid G.O. before the Committee in question which is expert body authorised to decide the issue. At this juncture it is necessary to be noticed that if the petitioners are charging fees as indicated in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, which prima facie appears to be very exorbitant amounting to profiteering or charging capitation fee. At this juncture it is necessary to be noticed that if the petitioners are charging fees as indicated in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, which prima facie appears to be very exorbitant amounting to profiteering or charging capitation fee. In such facts and situation, it would not be in the interest of the public and in the interest of justice to permit the petitioners to continue to charge such high fees so long as it is not decided by the Committee headed by the retired Judge of this Court particularly when the petitioners did not submit their proposed fee structure before the Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.K.Sareen, retired Judge of this Court nominated by the Chief Justice of this Court in consonance of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Islamic Academy of Education case, according to the new scheme of admission in pursuance of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in T.M.A. Pai’s case and Islamic Academy of Education case. Undisputedly, the petitioners have submitted their proposed fee structure for Academic Session 2003-2004 before the Government as existing earlier prior to the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and enjoying continuously the interim order of this Court, even after constitution of Committee as claimed by the petitioners in Feb, 2004 and they did not choose to place their proposed fee structure before such Committee. Therefore, on this count also the petitioners cannot be permitted to take advantage of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education case unless the petitioners themselves have taken steps according to the requirement of the aforesaid decision itself, which in fact they have not taken as yet.” (emphasis supplied) 32. The Court, therefore, upheld the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003: “Thus in given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Government Order dated 15.7.2003 fixing the amount of fees chargeable by petitioner institution from the students of M.B.B.S and Dental Courses for Academic Session 2003-2004 with the liberty to the petitioners to place the materials before the competent Committee for charging higher fees than fixed by the aforesaid Government Order, does not call for any interference and in given facts and circumstances of the case, I could not find any justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussions and observations made herein before, the writ petition is devoid of merits, hence is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) 33. It would, thus, be seen that the Court had upheld the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 since it gave liberty to the Institution, in case it wanted to charge higher fees than that fixed under the Government Order, to submit proposal with justification before the Committee constituted under the said Government Order which was replaced by another Committee by the Government Order dated 20th February, 2004. It is for this reason that the Court observed that the right of the Institution vis-a-vis the fee structure had not been determined finally since the Institution was at liberty to place its case before the Committee with justification and materials for charging higher fees than that fixed under the Government Order. The Court also noted that the fees which was being charged by the Dental College, as was mentioned in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Parents Association, was prima-facie very exorbitant amounting to profiteering or charging capitation fees and in such a situation it would not be in the interest of the public and in the interest of justice to permit the Dental College to continue to charge such a higher fees so long it was not determined by the Committee headed by Justice P.K. Sareen, particularly when the Dental College had not submitted any proposed fee structure before the said Committee. These observations made by the Court leave no manner of doubt that the Dental College could charge only that much fees as was determined under the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 for the time being and in case the Dental College wanted to charge higher fees, it had to submit the proposed fee structure before the Committee and it is only when the recommendation, if any, made by the Committee for enhancement of the fee structure was accepted by the State Government that such higher fees could be charged from the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04. This judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 has been allowed to become final since no appeal was filed by the Dental College. 34. This judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 has been allowed to become final since no appeal was filed by the Dental College. 34. The Dental College, as noticed hereinabove, had charged Rs.2.07 lacs as fees per annum from each student admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 but it has retained the relevant certificates and has not paid stipend to the students on the assumption that the students had not deposited this fees for the last Academic Session 2006-07 of the four years course though this fees had been deposited for the earlier Academic Sessions namely 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. 35. The stand of the Dental College is that since the Committee has fixed Rs. 2.05 lacs as fees per annum for each student admitted in the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2004-05, the same fees can be charged for the earlier Academic Session 2003-04. 36. This submission cannot be accepted. The challenge made by the Society and the Dental College to the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 had failed and the only course open to the Dental College was to have submitted a fee structure for the Academic Session 2003-04 before the Committee but till such time as the proposal of the Dental College is not accepted by the State Government, the Dental College, on its own, cannot be permitted to charge fees higher than that contemplated under the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003. 37. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, it follows that the Dental College, at present, cannot charge either Rs. 2.07 lacs per student per annum which fees it has charged under the interim order dated 28th August, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 and nor can it charge Rs. 2.05 lacs per student per annum which is the fees charged by the Dental College from the students admitted in the Academic Session 2004-05 and the proposal submitted by the Dental College before the Committee for enhancement of the fee structure for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 can be given effect to only when the State Government accepts the recommendation, if any, made by the Committee. 38. 38. Having examined this aspect, the next issue that needs to be decided is whether Justice Sareen Committee was justified in refusing to consider the proposed fee structure submitted by the Dental College for students of B.D.S. Course admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04. 39. It is contended on behalf of the Dental College as also on behalf of the State that the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 can now examine the fee structure proposed by the Dental College 40. In this connection, it is contended by Sri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the Dental College that a representation dated 27th December, 2005 was sent to the Justice Sareen Committee by Registered Post (Annexure-9 to Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006). In paragraph 9 of the short counter-affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the said representation submitted by the Dental College was forwarded to the Chairman of the Committee by the State Government by the letter dated 30th November, 2005 and the Committee in its meeting held on 14th February, 2006 did not examine it, since it had no jurisdiction to examine the fee structure for the Academic Session 2003-04. 41. It has, therefore, to be examined whether Justice Sareen Committee can decide the fee structure for the Academic Session 2003-04 because the Dental College has also sought the quashing of the decision taken by Justice Sareen Committee and a direction that the said Committee may now determine the fee structure for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04. 42. The Lucknow Bench of this Court examined this issue in Writ Petition No. 2117 (M/S) of 2006 filed by Durga Charitable Society whose proposed fee structure for the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 was also rejected by the Committee on 14th February, 2006. The Court by the judgment dated 20th November, 2006 set aside the order dated 14th February, 2006 with a direction to the Committee to decide the claim and the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows : “The dispute in the present case relates to the session 2003-04. Similar matters were engaging the attention of this Court at Allahabad. In the case of Royal Society (supra) the Government order dated 2.8.2003 was challenged. Similar matters were engaging the attention of this Court at Allahabad. In the case of Royal Society (supra) the Government order dated 2.8.2003 was challenged. In para 19 of the said decision, this Court took stock of the situation and held that once the judgment of the Apex Court has arrived, all the Government orders issued by the State Government were rendered otiose and therefore it was the committee as authorised under the judgment of the Apex Court which could take decisions in respect of the fixation of the fee structure managed by private Institutions. The procedure for determining the fee structure was undergoing a transitory phase. The question of retrospectivity of the govt. order does not arise as it is under a judgment of the Apex Court that a dispute redressal mechanism has been created. The disputes continued to exist on the date when this arrangement was introduced and therefore the respondent No. 3 committee was not justified in depriving itself of the jurisdiction to decide the dispute. In such circumstances it can be presumed that the object sought to be achieved was to provide a forum for all disputes of fixation of fee structure. It cannot be said that the committee so constituted was precluded from taking a decision in respect of the same nature of dispute for which the said committee was constituted under the directions of the Apex Court. There is yet another reason for the same. This dispute of fee structure had begun in the year 2000 itself and as such the dispute pertaining thereto was still in a volatile state, and it was for this reason, that the committee, in the opinion of this Court, was constituted to take a decision in respect of all such matters. This was also clearly intended by the Apex Court in para 223 of the judgment in Islamic Academy case (supra). It goes without saying that the duty of the Court is to avoid an interpretation which advances mis-chief. The Court has to construe the various provisions and judgments rendered in a manner that it advances the cause and fulfils the object which is sought to be achieved. The jurisdiction, therefore, did vest in respondent No. 3 committee which it failed to exercise and therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable. The Court has to construe the various provisions and judgments rendered in a manner that it advances the cause and fulfils the object which is sought to be achieved. The jurisdiction, therefore, did vest in respondent No. 3 committee which it failed to exercise and therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable. In view of the reasons given herein above it would be appropriate that the committee is directed to decided the matter afresh in order to further avoid any multiplicity and complexity of the problem. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 14.2.2006 is quashed with a direction to the respondent No. 3 committee to forthwith proceed to decide the claim of the applicant in respect of the sessions 2003-04 as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.” 43. The aforesaid decision of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2117 (M/S) of 2006 as also the decision of this Court dated 21st August, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 42148 of 2006, Subharati K.K.B. Charitable Trust and another v. State of U.P. and others, was considered by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 664 of 2008 decided on 28th May, 2009 and it was observed : “Further, this Court in its order dated 21.8.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 42148 of 2006, which has been quoted in the preceding paragraph of the judgment had left the matter to be decided by Justice Sareen Committee. True it is that the Medical College did not challenge the minutes of Justice Sareen Committee declining to determine the fee structure, nonetheless in view of the aforesaid orders, nothing prevented it to approach Justice Sareen Committee for determination of fee. It is worth mentioning that the order of the State Government dated 15.7.2003 fixing the fee for the sessions 2003-04 gave liberty to such Institution, who intended to charge higher fee, to lay its claim before the Standing Committee, but the said order itself was stayed by this Court. On the face of it, it is difficult to hold that Justice Sareen Committee had no jurisdiction to determine the fee for the year 2003-04. In our opinion, if it is held that it has no jurisdiction, the Medical College shall be rendered remedyless.” 44. On the face of it, it is difficult to hold that Justice Sareen Committee had no jurisdiction to determine the fee for the year 2003-04. In our opinion, if it is held that it has no jurisdiction, the Medical College shall be rendered remedyless.” 44. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it has to be held that Justice Sareen Committee was not justified in refusing to examine the proposed fee structure submitted by the Dental College for the students of B.D.S. Course admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04. 45. However, learned Standing Counsel for the State has pointed out that a fresh Committee has now been constituted by the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 and in the short counter-affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the said Committee can decide the fee structure for the students of the Dental College admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04. The Court in the judgment dated 27th May, 2005 rendered in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003 had also directed that the fee structure proposed by the Dental College can be examined by the Committee. 46. It has, therefore, to be decided whether the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 should examine the fee structure or Justice Sareen Committee should examine the matter. 47. The Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 clearly mentions in paragraph 6 that the earlier two Committees namely the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 2nd August, 2003 and the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 20th February, 2004 shall be discontinued and their existence will come to an end. The Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 alone is, therefore, in existence and the learned Standing Counsel for the State has also stated that this Committee can examine the proposed fee structure for the students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Dental College in the Academic Session 2003-04. Thus, it is the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 that can now decide the fee structure in terms of the judgment rendered on 27th May, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003. 48. Thus, it is the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 that can now decide the fee structure in terms of the judgment rendered on 27th May, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 37525 of 2003. 48. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that so long as the State Government does not fix any higher fee structure on the proposal submitted by the Dental College before the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 for enhancement of the fee structure and the Committee and the State Government accept the proposal, the Dental College can charge only that much fees as is mentioned in the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 which provides that each student admitted to the B.D. S. Course in the Dental College in the Academic Session 2003-04 shall have to pay fees Rs.1.10 lacs per annum. 49. It is seen that since the Dental College was not releasing the marksheets and the certificates to the students who had been admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 even after passing the said course, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the students in Writ Petition No. 21451 of 2009 pressed for an interim order and on 18th September, 2009, the Court passed the following interim order : “The hearing of Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006 which is being heard alongwith the present petition is continuing and the Court has fixed 8th October, 2009. Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 21451 of 2009 has submitted that though the petitioners had appeared at the Final Year examination in 2006-07, mark sheets and the certificates have not been issued to the petitioners as yet as a result of which they are not able to do private practice or seek selection in hospitals. It is stated by Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Institution that the petitioners have deposited the fees in the following manner : 2003-04 - Rs. 2.07 lacs 2004-05 - Rs. 2.07 lacs 2005-06 - Rs. 2.07 lacs 2006-07 - NIL It is his submission that for the years 2004-05 and onwards, the Committee has fixed the annual fees as Rs. 2.05 lacs and for the year 2003-04, the petitioners have already deposited Rs. 2.07 lacs. 2.07 lacs 2004-05 - Rs. 2.07 lacs 2005-06 - Rs. 2.07 lacs 2006-07 - NIL It is his submission that for the years 2004-05 and onwards, the Committee has fixed the annual fees as Rs. 2.05 lacs and for the year 2003-04, the petitioners have already deposited Rs. 2.07 lacs. He, therefore, submits that as nothing has been deposited for the year 2006-07, the petitioners should be directed to pay the balance fees of Rs. 1.99 lacs with interest before any mark sheet or certificate is issued to the petitioners. The dispute is whether the petitioners are liable to pay fees of Rs. 1.10 lacs for the academic year 2003-04 or some higher amount. The petitioners have appeared at the 2006-07 Examination and substantial period has now lapsed. The result should be declared but in order to secure the interest of the Institution, it is ordered that upon each of the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1.99 lacs in favour of ‘Rama Educational Society, Kanpur’ and also upon depositing the hostel fees for the Session 2006-07, the mark sheet and the certificates should be immediately released by the Institution in favour of the petitioners. The Institution shall, however, adjust the security amount deposited by the students against the hostel fees and the balance, if any, may be submitted by them in cash. The Bank guarantee should be furnished for a period of 6 months which shall be renewed from time to time as per the directions of this Court.” 50. The students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04 have deposited Rs. 6.21 lacs towards the fees for the four years course and it is not in dispute that the students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 are required to pay the same fees per annum for all the four years. The fees that could have been charged by the Dental College from the students admitted in the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04, in terms of the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 for the entire four years course, is Rs. 4.40 lacs. Thus, each student has deposited Rs. 1.81 lacs as excess fees. The fees that could have been charged by the Dental College from the students admitted in the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04, in terms of the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003 for the entire four years course, is Rs. 4.40 lacs. Thus, each student has deposited Rs. 1.81 lacs as excess fees. The amount towards the hostel fees for the Academic Session 2006-07 was required to be deposited by the students in terms of the interim order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the Court and if the said amount has still not been deposited by some students, the same shall be paid by the students on a demand made by the Dental College. 51. The Dental College is, therefore, required to refund the excess amount of Rs. 1.81 lacs realised by it from the students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04. It must also pay interest to the students on the excess amount deposited by the students since it has retained this amount without any justification. The Dental College has also not paid the stipend to the students and nor has it issued the marksheets and the certificates to the students on the presumption that they have not deposited the fees when infact, as noticed hereinabove, each student had paid Rs. 1.81 lacs in excess. The students have been made to suffer since in the absence of certificates and the marksheets, they could not have started their medical practice and nor they could have taken employment. The students are, therefore, entitled to compensation also for the loss so suffered by them. The interest and the compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is determined at Rs. 50,000/- per student. 52. It can be urged by Sri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the Dental College that at this stage no direction should be issued for refund of the excess amount to the students because if the Committee recommends for enhancement of fees and the Government accepts such recommendations, they shall again have to deposit the balance fees and it will be difficult for the Dental College to recover the fees. This plea cannot be accepted. This plea cannot be accepted. Such presumption of the Dental College that the Committee shall make recommendation for enhancement of the fee structure and the Government will accept the proposed fee structure cannot be made a ground by the Dental College to charge any higher fees in anticipation. Nothing prevented the Dental College from filing the proposal before the Committee in August, 2003 itself, once the permanent Committee was constituted by the State Government and for the fault of the Dental College, the students cannot be made to suffer any longer. It transpires that it is only after the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 375252 of 2003 on 27th May, 2005 that the Dental College submitted a representation before the Committee for enhancement of the fee structure which was rejected. The students admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 have completed the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2006-07 but the Dental College has retained all their documents and the certificates on the pretext that the students had still to deposit some additional fees whereas, as seen above, it had charged higher fees than that fixed under the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003. 53. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the order dated 14th February, 2006 of the Committee is set aside. Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2006 is, therefore, partly allowed and a direction is issued that in the event the Dental College submits a proposal alongwith the relevant documents before the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 27th June, 2008 for fixation of higher fee structure for the students admitted to the B.D.S. Course in the Academic Session 2003-04, the said Committee shall examine the same and make its recommendation, in case it considers it necessary to do so, to the State Government for its consideration. The Dental College shall, however, pay an amount of Rs. 2.31 lacs by draft to each student admitted in the Academic Session 2003-04 who has deposited fees over and above the fees prescribed in the Government Order dated 15th July, 2003. If any student has deposited lesser fees, it shall be open to the Dental College to reduce the amount to that extent. Such deposit has to be made within one month from today. The Bank Guarantees furnished by the students under the interim order dated 18th September, 2009 shall stand discharged. 54. If any student has deposited lesser fees, it shall be open to the Dental College to reduce the amount to that extent. Such deposit has to be made within one month from today. The Bank Guarantees furnished by the students under the interim order dated 18th September, 2009 shall stand discharged. 54. Writ Petition No. 21451 of 2009 is also allowed. The Dental College shall pay the stipend amount due to the students and issue the relevant certificates/marksheets and the other documents to the students as expeditiously as is possible, but in any case within two weeks from today. ————