Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1440 (PNJ)

Adesh University, Bathinda v. State Of Punjab

2020-07-15

GIRISH AGNIHOTRI, JASWANT SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT CM No. 5721 of 2020 1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous has been filed by the State of Punjab seeking for vacation of stay granted vide order dated 18.6.2020, whereby the operation of corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 (P-15) was stayed qua the petitioner University, thereby permitting the petitioner University to charge the unrevised fees. 2. That this Court while issuing notice of motion and notice re: stay vide order dated 10.6.2019 formulated two issues. Response was sought from the respondent state on the said issues. Relevant order passed by this Court on 10.6.2019 reads as under:- At this stage, the arguments have been entertained only on the following two issues:- (i) the rationale / basis, upon which, the competent authority under the Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Fee and Making of Reservation) Act, 2006, as amended till 17.04.2020, has fixed the consolidated fee for the Post-Graduate (PG) Courses in the petitioners-University for the session 2020-2021; and (ii) as to how the revised fee structure vide the Corrigendum dated 19.05.2020 (Annexure P-15) can be enforced qua the ongoing admission process initiated on 11.03.2020 vide issuance of the prospectus (Annexure P-11) based on the Admission Policy dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure P-10), and more so, when some of the students have already deposited the pre-revised rate of fee at the time of admissions in the first counselling held on 24.04.2020. " 3. On 18.6.2020, despite the fact that on 10.6.2019 while issuing notice of motion& notice re: stay, the state in casual manner without seeing the gravity and urgency of the case, instead of filing an affidavit or addressing arguments on the issues, sought more time. On this account keeping in view the fact that time is essence in admission matters, this Court passed the following order: - At the time of hearing today, counsel for the respondents has prayed for more time to file the affidavit in compliance of the directions contained in the previous order, in spite of being well aware of the urgency and strict time schedule to be adhered for the admissions to PG Courses and notice regarding interim directions having been issued. Learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that the schedule for second counselling has been notified and the last date fixed for expressing willingness to participate in the second counselling is 24.06.2020. Learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that the schedule for second counselling has been notified and the last date fixed for expressing willingness to participate in the second counselling is 24.06.2020. Faced with this situation, we are constrained to consider passing of the interim directions without the affidavit to be filed by the State. Counsel have been heard on Stay. It is not in dispute that the petitioner being a private university created under the enactment by the State Legislature has been fixing the fees to be charged from the students in terms of the provisions of the Adesh University Act, 2012, the rates of which are also approved by the State in each year of the admissions inter alia to PG Courses. Prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that once Prospectus has been issued and implemented, it cannot be allowed to be changed mid-admissions so as to disrupt the process of admissions. Prospectus controls the method and procedure for admission to the courses. Govt. could have objected to the fees fixed by the University before the commencement of the first Counselling, wherein concededly some of the admissions have been made based on the Fee structure earlier approved (P10) by the State Govt. and duly notified in the prospectus (P-ll). Hence the State Govt. ought not to have interfered/altered the conditions of the prospectus to the disadvantage of the parties/Stakeholders. Therefore, to maintain the balance of equities and convenience, it would be just and proper that the admissions to PG Courses be permitted to be made on the strength of the Prospectus (P-11) laying down the fee structure, which had been notified, advertised, adopted and followed, in the first counselling. Accordingly, operation of the Corrigendum dated 19.05.2020 (P-15) qua the petitioner-University is stayed However, the petitioner University shall file an affidavit in this Court before the second counselling, undertaking that incase the present petition fails, the petitioner-University will refund the excess of the fees charged from the students with interest at the rate of 7%per annum. List on 30.06.2020 for further consideration. " 4. Notice in the instant application was issued on 6.7.2020 and the counsel for the non-applicants/petitioner has filed his response dated 10.7.2020 to the instant application filed for vacation of stay. 5. List on 30.06.2020 for further consideration. " 4. Notice in the instant application was issued on 6.7.2020 and the counsel for the non-applicants/petitioner has filed his response dated 10.7.2020 to the instant application filed for vacation of stay. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant/ State of Punjab submits that the impugned corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 has been rightly issued by the State Government in terms of the Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Fee and Making of Reservation) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Act). Section 7 of the 2006 Act empowers the State government to fix and regulate fee structure of Private Universities/Institutions. Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submits, that under Clause 17.2 of the notification dated 14.2.2020, it had been categorically mentioned, that fee in petitioner University for Postgraduate courses will be determined as per the Adesh University Act, 2012, unless and until the same is amended. The State while excising the powers under the 2006 Act has issued the corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 thereby revising the fees. Thus the petitioner University was always aware of the fact that the fees is to be revised and it is not the case, that the corrigendum has been issued without their knowledge. 6. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant/ petitioner, submits that the action of the State of Punjab is arbitrary, as the fees has been determined without granting any opportunity of hearing or taking into consideration the infrastructure and the facilities available in the petitioner University. He further submits, that the petitioner is charging the fees in terms of the facilities, infrastructure, and quality of education being provided at the campus and no complaint has ever been received w.r.t. the petitioner being indulged in profiteering or charging any capitation fees. Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant further submits, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has time and again held, that it is within the rights of the private institutions to fix their fees and no rigid fee structure can be imposed by the State Government. The State of Punjab without taking into consideration the infrastructure and other facilities available in the University or financial books of the University has fixed rigid fee structure. The fee structure has been revised in the middle of the counselling process (as the first counselling had already conducted), which is impermissible in law. 7. The State of Punjab without taking into consideration the infrastructure and other facilities available in the University or financial books of the University has fixed rigid fee structure. The fee structure has been revised in the middle of the counselling process (as the first counselling had already conducted), which is impermissible in law. 7. Having scrutinized the rival contentions of the parties, and perused the pleadings and the material placed on record with the able assistance of the counsel(s); and keeping in mind the sensitivity of the issues involved in the present case, this Court deems it necessary, that first the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the issue be discussed in brief:- (A) T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held, that the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated but such regulatory measures must be in general to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and prevention of maladministration. But at the same time the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fixation of a rigid fee structure or dictation of formation in composition of the Governing Body are unacceptable restrictions. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that essential ingredients of the management of private institute includes recruiting of students and staff and determining the quantum of fee to be charged. The Government has been empowered to provide for regulations that will ensure excellence in education while forbidding the charging of capitation fee and profiteering by the Institutes. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as under:- "54. The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure (including qualified staff) and the prevention of mal-administration by those in charge of management The fixing of a rigid free structure, dictating the formation and composition of a governing body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for__ appointment or nominating students for__ admissions would be unacceptable restrictions. 55. The Constitution recognizes the right of the individual or religious denomination, or a religious or linguistic minority to establish an educational institution. If aid or financial assistance is not sought, then such institution will be a private unaided institution. 55. The Constitution recognizes the right of the individual or religious denomination, or a religious or linguistic minority to establish an educational institution. If aid or financial assistance is not sought, then such institution will be a private unaided institution. Although, in Unnikrishnan's case, the Court emphasised the important role played by private unaided institutions and the need for private funding, in the scheme that was framed, restrictions were placed on some of the important ingredients, relating to the functioning of an educational institution. There can be no doubt that in seeking affiliation or recognition, the Board or the university or the affiliating or recognising authority can lay down conditions consistent with the requirement to ensure the excellence of education. It can, for instance, indicate the quality of the teachers by prescribing the minimum qualifications that they must possess, and the courses of study and curricula. It can, for the same reasons, also stipulate the existence of infrastructure sufficient for its growth, as a prerequisite. But the essence of a private__ educational institution is the autonomy that the institution must have in its management and administration. There, necessarily, has to be a difference in the administration of private unaided institutions and the government-aided institutions. Whereas in the latter case, the Government will have greater say in the administration, including admissions and fixing of fees, in the case of private unaided institutions, maximum autonomy in the day-to-day administration has to be with the private unaided institutions. Bureaucratic or governmental interference in the administration of such an institution will undermine its independence. While an educational institution is not a business, in order to examine the degree of independence that can be given to a recognised educational institution, like any private entity that does not seek aid or assistance from the Government, and that exists by virtue of the funds generated by it, including its loans or borrowings, it is important to note that the essential ingredients of the management of the private institution include the recruiting students and staff, and the quantum of fee that is to be charged 56. An educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution. Different courses of study are usually taught by teachers who have to be recruited as per qualifications that may be prescribed. It is no secret that better working conditions will attract better teachers. An educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution. Different courses of study are usually taught by teachers who have to be recruited as per qualifications that may be prescribed. It is no secret that better working conditions will attract better teachers. More amenities will ensure that better students seek admission to that institution. One cannot lose sight of the fact that providing good amenities to the students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other infrastructure costs money. It has, therefore, to be left to the institution, if it chooses not to seek any aid from the government, to determine the scale of fee that it can charge from the students. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that we live in a competitive world today, where professional education is in demand. We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private parties who do not seek any governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective student has various options open to him/her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. The decision on the fee to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational institution that does not seek or is not dependent upon any funds from the government. 57. We, however, wish to emphasise one point, and that is that inasmuch as the occupation of education is in a sense, regarded as charitable, the Government can provide regulations that will ensure excellence in education, while forbidding the charging of capitation fee and profiteering by the institution. Since the object of setting up an educational institution is by definition "charitable", it is clear that an educational institution cannot charge such a fee as is not required for the purpose of fulfilling that object To put it differently, in the establishment of an education is essentially the object should not be to make a profit, inasmuch as education is essentially charitable in nature. There can, however, be a reasonable revenue surplus, which may be generated by the educational institution for the purpose of development of education and expansion of the institution."(Emphasis Supplied) (B) Academic of Education v. State of Karnataka, 2003 (6) SCC 697 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said case held that there can be no fixation of rigid fee structure by the Government and that each institute must have freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds and to run the Institute and to provide better facilities to the students. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the fee structure for each Institute must be fixed keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities available, the investments made and the salaries to be paid to the teachers and staff. At the same time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while formulating a committee to keep a check on the private institutes so that they do not end up indulging in profiteering and charging capitation fee, observed that the Government/Authority should consider framing appropriate regulations under which, if any Institute is found indulging in charging capitation fees or profiteering, appropriate penal action could be taken against them. The relevant paragraph of the Islamic Academy (supra) reads as under- " 7. 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. 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 emphasised 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 T.M.A. 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. 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 total number of members of the Committee shall not exceed 5. Each educational Institute must place before this Committee, well in advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure. Along with 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 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, where under 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) (C) P. A. INAMDAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2005 (6) SCC 537 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.A. Inamdar (supra) upheld the committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Islamic Academy case (supra) for regulating the fee determined by the private institute. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar (supra) again reiterated that every institute is free to devise its own fee structure but at the same time the institutes can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering. The relevant observations read as under- " Q. 3 Fee, regulation of 139. To set up a reasonable fee structure is also a component of "the right to establish and administer an institution " within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, as per the law declared in Pai Foundation. Every institution is free to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that there can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or indirectly, or in any form (Paras 56 to 58 and 161 [Answer to Q. 5(c)J of Pai Foundation are relevant in this regard). (Emphasis Supplied) Capitation Fees 140. Capitation fee cannot be permitted to be charged and no seat can be permitted to be appropriated by payment of capitation fee. 'Profession' has to be distinguished from 'business' or a mere 'occupation'. (Emphasis Supplied) Capitation Fees 140. Capitation fee cannot be permitted to be charged and no seat can be permitted to be appropriated by payment of capitation fee. 'Profession' has to be distinguished from 'business' or a mere 'occupation'. While in business, and to a certain extent in occupation, there is a profit motive, profession is primarily a service to society wherein earning is secondary or incidental. A student who gets a professional degree by payment of capitation fee, once qualified as a professional, is likely to aim more at earning rather than serving and that becomes a bane to the society. The charging of capitation fee by unaided minority and non-minority institutions for professional courses is just not permissible. Similarly, profiteering is also not permissible. Despite the legal position, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the hard realities of commercialisation of education and evil practices being adopted by many institutions to earn large amounts for their private or selfish ends. If capitation fee and profiteering is to be checked, the method of admission has to be regulated so that the admissions are based on merit and transparency and the students are not exploited. It is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving the purpose just stated. 141. Our answer to Question-3 is that every institution is free to devise its own fee structure but the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering. No capitation fee can be charged "(Emphasis Supplied) (D) Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 (7) SCC 353 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Modern Dental College case (supra) while considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case (supra) and in PA. Inamdar case (supra) held that the state regulation should be minimal and only to maintain fairness in admission process and to check exploitation by charging exorbitant money or capitation fee. It was further held, that every institute is free to devise its own fee structure but at the same time the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged. Further it had been held that fixation of fee should be regulated and controlled at the initial stage itself. The relevant paragraphs Modern Dental College case (supra) are as under:- " 71. Further it had been held that fixation of fee should be regulated and controlled at the initial stage itself. The relevant paragraphs Modern Dental College case (supra) are as under:- " 71. We may again remind ourselves that though right to establish and manage educational institution is treated as a right to carry on 'occupation', which is the fundamental right under Article 19(l)(g), the Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation had also cautioned such educational institution not to indulge in profiteering or commercialisation. That judgment also completely bars these educational institutions from charging capitation fee. This is considered by the appellants themselves that commercialisation and exploitation is not permissible and the educational institutions are supposed to run on 'no profit, no loss basis'. No doubt, it was also recognised that cost of education may vary from institution to institution and in this respect many variable factors may have to be taken into account while fixing the fee. It is also recognised that the educational institutions may charge the fee that would take care of various expenses incurred by these educational institutions plus provision for the expansion of education for future generation. At the same time, unreasonable demand cannot be made from the present students and their parents. For this purpose, only a 'reasonable surplus' can be generated. 75. To put it in nutshell, though the fee can be fixed by the educational institutions and it may vary from institution to institution depending upon the quality of education provided by each of such institution, commercialisation is not permissible. In order to see that the educational institutions are not indulging in commercialisation and exploitation, the Government is equipped with necessary powers to take regulatory measures and to ensure that these educational institutions keep playing vital and pivotal role to spread education and not to make money. So much so, the Court was categorical in holding that when it comes to the notice of the Government that a particular institution was charging fee or other charges which are excessive, it has a right to issue directions to such an institution to reduce the same. 80. The judgment in P.A. Inamdar, though sought to review the judgment in Islamic Academy of Education, left the mechanism of having the Committees undisturbed. 80. The judgment in P.A. Inamdar, though sought to review the judgment in Islamic Academy of Education, left the mechanism of having the Committees undisturbed. In paragraph 129 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar, this Court observed that the State regulation should be minimal and only to maintain fairness in admission procedure and to check exploitation by charging exorbitant money or capitation fees. In paragraph 140, it has been held that the charge of capital fee by unaided minority and non-minority institutions for professional courses is just not permissible. Similarly, profiteering is also not permissible. This Court went on to observe that it cannot shut its eyes to the hard realities of commercialisation of education and evil practices being adopted by many institutions to earn large amounts for their private or selfish ends. In respect of Question No.3 framed thereunder, which was with respect to the Government regulation in the case of private institutions, this Court, in paragraph 141 of the judgment, answered that every institution is free to device its own fee structure, but the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged. In paragraph 145, the suggestion for post-audit or checks is rejected if the institutions adopt their own admission procedure and fee structure since this Court was of the view that fixation of fees should be regulated and controlled at the initial stage itself. " (Emphasis Supplied) 8. It can be safely concluded from above that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the fee structure of each institute will be separate, keeping in view the facilities and infrastructure provided by such institute and the cost and expenditure incurred by the Institute. The private institutes are free to ascertain/determine their fees, however they cannot indulge in profiteering or charging of capitation fees. The State Government can provide regulations for regulating the fee structure of private institute but in no manner can adopt the procedure of fixing any rigid fee structure. 9. A bare perusal of the notification dated 14.2.2020 (P-10) makes it evident, that fee structure of private institutions/universities has been provided under Clause 17 of the notification. Clause 17 reads as under: - " 17. 9. A bare perusal of the notification dated 14.2.2020 (P-10) makes it evident, that fee structure of private institutions/universities has been provided under Clause 17 of the notification. Clause 17 reads as under: - " 17. Fee Structure and Private Institutions/Universities:- 17.1 Dayanand medical College (DMC), Ludhiana, Christian Medical College (CMC) & Christian Dental College (CDC), Ludhiana and Shri Guru Ramdas University of health sciences (SGRGUHS) Amritsar, Desh Bhagat University Fee structure in these institutions/universities as per notification No. 5/14/2015-5HB III/844 dated 7.5.2015 for the year 2020 is as under: - Sr. No. Name of Course Fee per year (in Rs.) And nice seats fee for full course in US $ 1 MD/MS (clinical) 6,50,000 1,25,000 2 MD/MS (Basic sciences) 2,60,000 20,000 3 PG Diploma 3,90,000 30,000 4 MDS 5,85,000 1,00,000 17.2 Adesh university, Bhatinda: Fee in Adesh University, Bhatinda for PG courses will be determined as per Adesh University Act, 2012 and unless and until, either Adesh University Act, 2012 or the 2006 Act are amended, the status quo ante shall be maintained." (Emphasis Supplied) 10. It is admitted position, that prior to notification dated 17.4.2020 (P-14) amending the 2006 Act, the petitioner University was not governed under the 2006 Act. By carrying out amendment in the Act, for the very 1 st time, the petitioner University had been brought under the ambit of 2006 Act. 11. The State of Punjab in terms of the 2006 Act was empowered to determine the fees of the petitioner University in terms of the amendment carried out in the 2006 Act, however a bare perusal of the impugned corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 (P-15) makes it evident that there has been no determination of fees and merely in an mechanical manner the name of the petitioner University has been shifted from Clause 17.2 to Clause 17.1. The amended clause 17.1 in terms of corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 reads as under: - " In partial modification of the notification No. 5/26/2016-5HB-III/1121 dated 14.02.2020, Clause 17.2 of this notification is deleted in Clause 17.1 of this notification as amended as under:- 17. The amended clause 17.1 in terms of corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 reads as under: - " In partial modification of the notification No. 5/26/2016-5HB-III/1121 dated 14.02.2020, Clause 17.2 of this notification is deleted in Clause 17.1 of this notification as amended as under:- 17. Fee Structure and Private Institutions/Universities: - 17.1 Dayanand medical College (DMC), Ludhiana, Christian Medical College (CMC) & Christian Dental College (CDC), Ludhiana and Shri Guru Ramdas University of health sciences (SGRGUHS) Amritsar, Desh Bhagat University and Adesh University, Bhatinda Fee structure in these institutions/universities as per notification No. 5/14/2015-5HB HI/844 dated 7.5.2015 for the year 2020 is as under: - Sr. No. Name of Course Fee per year (in Rs.) And nice seats fee for full course in US $ 1 MD/MS (clinical) 6,50,000 1,25,000 2 MD/MS (Basic sciences) 2,60,000 20,000 Sr. No. Name of Course Fee per year (in Rs.) And nice seats fee for full course in US $ 3 PG Diploma 3,90,000 30,000 4 MDS 5,85,000 1,00,000 (Emphasis Supplied) 12. As per Clause 17.1 it is evident, that the fee structure of the Institutions/Universities has been fixed in terms of notification dated 7.5.2015. The State Government instead of determining the fee structure of the petitioner University has merely put the petitioner University on the same pedestal of the other private institutes in the State of Punjab, without any application of mind or any rationale. Further by putting the petitioner college in the fee structure as determined by notification dated 7.5.2015, the State of Punjab has turned the clock back &that also by 5 years without assigning any reasons. 13. The reliance placed by the applicant / State of Punjab on Section 7 of the 2006 Act, as amended, will also not come to the rescue of the State Government, as it is evident from bare reading of Section 7 (1), that the State Government has to determine the fees to be charged by the Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions, having regard to the minimum norms of infrastructure and facilities as laid down by the concerned Council. In the present case, corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 makes it evident that the said determination or any application of mind is not forthcoming and merely in an mechanical manner all private institutes have been painted with the same brush by applying the same fee structure (and that too determined five years ago) on all the private institutions/universities functioning in the state of Punjab. 14. It is evident from above, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has time and again held, that fixing of rigid fee structure is not an acceptable restriction and that each institute must have freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the infrastructure, facilities available, the investments made, salaries to be paid to the staff and other future plans for expansion etc. etc. At the same time, while granting freedom to fix the own fee structure the private institutes have been barred from indulging in profiteering or charging capitation fees. The State governments have been empowered to lay down such norms/ regulations so as to keep a check on the private institutions and to ensure that no capitation fees is being charged by institute or the Institute is indulging in profiteering. 15. In the present case, Ld. Counsel for the applicants / State of Punjab has not been able to show either from the order or from the file, any application of mind or consideration of any factors / norms (such as infrastructure, facilities available in the campus etc. etc.) while determining the fees of the petitioner institute vide the impugned corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 (P-15). Further it is admitted position, that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner's while revising the fee structure. 16. The 2006 Act does not empower or in any manner depicts, fixing rigid fees for all the private institutes. Fixing of fees is not barred under the 2006 Act however the reasoning has to be assigned while determining the fees of each institute. 17. That the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ State of Punjab has also not been able to dispute the fact, the petitioner University has been charging the said fees in the previous year's also and there has been no complaint with regard to the University being indulging in profiteering or charging any capitation fees. 17. That the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ State of Punjab has also not been able to dispute the fact, the petitioner University has been charging the said fees in the previous year's also and there has been no complaint with regard to the University being indulging in profiteering or charging any capitation fees. Even in the present year, the prospectus was issued by the University on 11.3.2020 (P-11) and on the basis of the said prospectus 1 st counselling had already been concluded by the nodal agency / Baba Farid University of the State of Punjab, and as per unrebutted pleadings 39 students chose the petitioner-University (Medical Institution) for admission to PG Courses out of which thirteen (13) had already deposited the fees at the unrevised rate. 18. Further no reason has been assigned in the order, or at the time of arguments, as to why the fees has been determined in such a hush-hush manner, once the prospectus had already been issued and the admission process had already commenced. It is settled position that Rules of the game cannot be changed midstream. Reference in this regard be made to Himani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi. 2008(2) S.C.T. 736 , Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India, 2014 (2) SCT654 . 19. It is also relevant to note, that the balance of equities had already been maintained by this Court vide order dated 18.6.2020, as while staying the operation of the corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 (P-15) this Court directed the petitioner-University to furnish an undertaking, that in case the present petition fails, the University will refund the excess fee charged from the students with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The benefit of interim relief to be applicable upon furnishing of such undertaking by the petitioner-University, which has been furnished before this Court [affidavit dated 23.06.2020 of Col. Jagdev Singh (Retd.), Registrar of the petitioner-University is available on record from Page 388 to 393 of the paper-book]. 20. Therefore keeping in view the facts and the legal position, mentioned above, at this stage no interference to the interim arrangement as provided by this Court vide order dated 18.6.2020 is required, as the balance of equities has already been maintained. The instant application for vacation of stay filed by the State of Punjab is thus dismissed for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. The instant application for vacation of stay filed by the State of Punjab is thus dismissed for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. CM No. 6264 of 2020 The instant application has been filed by the students (newly impleaded respondent Nos. 3, 5 & 6) who got admitted the petitioner-University in the 1 st counselling conducted by the nodal agency of the State government viz Baba Farid University, seeking stay on the notice dated 24.6.2020 (A-6) issued by the petitioner University and the notice dated 2.7.2020 (A-7) by the Baba Farid University. From perusal of the contents of the application, it transpires, that in view of the corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 (P-15) reducing the fee of the petitioner University, the Baba Farid University refunded the fees of the candidates who secured admission on the 1 st counselling in pursuance to the prospectus dated 11.3.2020, prescribing the un-revised fee. The refund of fee at that stage was uncalled for, as the Notice of Motion and Notice re: stay was issued in the instant petition on 10.6.2020. Despite that on 12.6.2020 the excess fees was refunded by the Baba Farid University. It is admitted position, that the applicant-students had taken admission in light of the prospectus dated 11.3.2020 in the 1 st counselling. The corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 was issued after the 1 st counselling had already concluded. The applicants had even deposited the unrevised fees in pursuance to the counselling process and now the applicants are seeking stay on the notices vide which the fees refunded to the applicants is being asked to be deposited. In our view, the applicants being aware of terms and conditions of prospectus participated in the counselling process. Therefore now the applicants cannot by filing of the present application wriggle out of the conditions and contents of the prospectus which are binding in nature. Even otherwise this Court vide order dated 18.6.2020 while staying the corrigendum dated 19.5.2020 has already balanced the equities, as in case the present petition does not succeed, the students will be entitled for refund of the excess fee along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Since balance of equities has already been maintained between the parties, and in view of the orders passed in CM. No. 5721 of 2020 here above, the present application is also dismissed. Since balance of equities has already been maintained between the parties, and in view of the orders passed in CM. No. 5721 of 2020 here above, the present application is also dismissed. MAIN CASE Formal notice with regard to the challenge to the Vires of the Enactment(s) is hereby issued for 19.08.2020. Respondent(s), who stand(s) served, to file reply.