Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1503 (GUJ)

Sandip Harshadray Munjyasara v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-01

N.V.ANJARIA

body2017
ORDER : N.V. ANJARIA, J. The petitioners herein are the students of respondent No. 2-Gujarat Forensic Science University. The University inter alia offers the impartation of education for the course of M. Tech. Cyber Security and Incident Response which is two years' course. The petitioners have been prosecuting the study in the said course for two years. 2. The grievance voiced by the petitioners in this petition is that the fees charged by respondent No. 2-University and respondent No. 3-Forensic Science Institute is unreasonable and exorbitant. The petitioners want that the fees structure of respondent No. 3-Institute is required to be approved by the Fees Regulatory Committee which is constituted under the Gujarat Professional Technical Education Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007. 3. The aforesaid Act defines “aided college or institution” in Section 2(b). The definition of “Professional courses” occurs in Section 2(k) of the Act, which is relevant for the purpose of dispute in the petition. It reads as under, “(k) “Professional Courses” means, (i) Bachelor of Engineering and Technology and the Diploma in Engineering; (ii) Bachelor of Pharmacy and the Diploma in Pharmacy; (iii) Bachelor of Architecture and the Diploma in Architecture; (iv) Bachelor of Hotel and Tourism Management and the Diploma in Hotel and Tourism Management; (v) Master of Business Administration; (vi) Master of Computer Application; and (vii) such other courses as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare;” 4. Under sub clause (vii) of Section 2(k) above, the State Government can issue notification and specify such other course other than mentioned in the definition to be brought under the purview of the fee regulatory mechanism of the Act. It was pointed out that the State Government has issued notification dated 18.11.2008 for the purpose of aforesaid sub clause (vii) of Section 2(k) of the Act, specifying following three courses to include (i) Master of Technology, (ii) Master of Engineering and (iii) Master of Pharmacy. 5. It was pointed out that the State Government has issued notification dated 18.11.2008 for the purpose of aforesaid sub clause (vii) of Section 2(k) of the Act, specifying following three courses to include (i) Master of Technology, (ii) Master of Engineering and (iii) Master of Pharmacy. 5. It was sought to be submitted on the basis of the aforesaid notification of the State Government that since the course of Master of Technology is already specified and declared to be the course under Section 2(k) of the Act, the course pursued by the petitioners at the respondents-University and Institute would automatically stand covered and therefore, the respondent Institute would be liable to be governed and controlled under the aforesaid Act for the purpose of fixation and regulation of the fees to be charged. 6. As against this, it is the case of the respondents that the said Fee Regulator Act does not apply to them. It is the submission that the course specified in the notification dated 18.11.2008 of the State Government refers to the course of Technology imparted in the General Stream of Engineering and Technology. It is the further case that the respondents-University and the Institute started functioning to offer the course of M. Tech. Cyber Security and Incident Response. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondents were proposed to set up completely autonomous institution and it has its own mechanism for regulating fees which are arrived on relevant criteria. 7. In view of above compass of the controversy, when the State was asked to view its stand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta submitted that affidavit-in-reply is yet to be filed by the State Government and thereupon, appropriate stand could be taken. 8. The State may file its reply responding to the controversy on or before 21.09.2017 9. Stand over to 28th September, 2017.