2018 (7) TMI 2345 - SC - Indian Laws

University cannot fix medical education fees independently without Committee approval under Section 4(2-A) of Tamil Nadu Act 1992

M. Aamira Fathima and Ors. Versus Annamalai University and Ors.

The SC set aside the HC judgment and held that the University cannot fix fees independently without compliance with the Tamil Nadu Educational ... Fixation of fees by the University - in compliance with the scale fixed by the Government as well as the Committee on Fixation of Fee or not - scope of Educational Institution - Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 - plea of estoppel - HELD THAT:- The High Court was completely in error in observing that for the application by the provisions of 1992 Act an educational institution must always be specified by the Government by notification. The requirement of specification of notification is only in respect of 'any other educational institution or class or classes of educational institutions' and has not to be read with (I) part of definition, which part of the definition is an independent and stand alone provision and does not require any specification by the Government. Whether University in the present case answers the description in (I) Part of Section 3(b) of 1992 Act? - HELD THAT:- Section 4 shows that under Sub-section (1) the Government is empowered to regulate the tuition fee or any other fees or deposits in the manner prescribed therein. But in relation to imparting of education leading to a degree in medicine or engineering, Sub-section (2-A) has been given an overriding effect by incorporating non-obstante provision. Sub-section (2-A), unlike Sub-section (1), does not require any notification by the Government. If an institution carries on activity of imparting education leading to a degree or diploma as spoken of in Sub-section (2-A) of said Section 4, the fee structure has to be that which is fixed by the Committee. The legislative intent is very clear and no educational institution which comes within the scope of Sub-section (2-A) can receive or collect any fees in excess of the amount fixed by the 'Committee on Fixation of Fee'. Whether the University by virtue of Section 4(13) and 20(1)(m) of 2013 Act could charge, collect and receive tuition fee without the intervention of 'Committee on Fixation of Fee' as contemplated by Section 4(2-A) of 1992 Act? - HELD THAT:- If a particular modality is prescribed by the Legislature any action in defiance or ignorance of such modality cannot be protected or preserved on the plea of estoppel. The reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Cochin University of Science and Technology [2008 (5) TMI 755 - SUPREME COURT] was also misplaced. In that case students who had taken admission in NRI Quota, thereafter contended that their fee structure be slashed to the same level as applicable to non NRI students. The concept of estoppel was pressed into service while rejecting said submission but that cannot be a ground to deny the express protection available under a legislation. Thus, the University was not entitled and competent to devise its own fee structure in the present matter without having the fee fixed by the Committee on Fixation of Fee as contemplated under 1992 Act. The matters shall therefore have to be referred to said Committee and the University is directed to place the entire material including its balance-sheet and accounts before the Committee on Fixation of Fee within two weeks from the date of this Judgment. The Committee shall thereafter bestow attention and fix appropriate fee structure for the academic year 2013-14 onwards. It goes without saying that if the fee structure fixed by the University is found by the Committee to be inappropriate, consequential benefit and advantage shall be given to each and every student. The Committee shall fix the appropriate fee structure for the current academic Session 2018-19 as well. The entire exercise shall be completed by 31.08.2018. The impugned judgement set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 (1992 Act) to the University.2. Authority of the University to fix its own fee structure.3. Estoppel against students challenging the fee structure after admission.4. Requirement of notification by the State Government for the application of the 1992 Act.5. Role of the Committee on Fixation of Fee in determining the fee structure.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 (1992 Act) to the University:The judgment examined whether the 1992 Act applied to the University. The Court analyzed the definition of 'educational institution' under Section 2(b) of the 1992 Act, which includes institutions imparting education leading to a degree or diploma conferred by any University established under any law made by the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court concluded that the University falls under this definition and thus the 1992 Act applies to it. The High Court's interpretation that a notification by the State Government was always required for the application of the 1992 Act was found to be erroneous.2. Authority of the University to Fix Its Own Fee Structure:The University argued that it had the authority to fix its own fee structure under the Annamalai University Act, 2013 (2013 Act). However, the Court held that the specific provisions of Section 4(2-A) of the 1992 Act, which mandate that fees for medical and engineering courses must be fixed by the Committee on Fixation of Fee, override the general provisions of the 2013 Act. Therefore, the University was not competent to devise its own fee structure without the Committee's intervention.3. Estoppel Against Students Challenging the Fee Structure After Admission:The University contended that students were estopped from challenging the fee structure as they had taken admission based on the prospectus for the academic year 2013-14. The Court rejected this argument, stating that if a particular modality is prescribed by the Legislature, any action in defiance or ignorance of such modality cannot be protected on the plea of estoppel. The reliance on the decision in Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Thomas P. John was found to be misplaced.4. Requirement of Notification by the State Government for the Application of the 1992 Act:The Court clarified that the requirement of notification by the State Government is only applicable to institutions that are not covered under the first part of the definition of 'educational institution' in Section 2(b) of the 1992 Act. Since the University was established under a law made by the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu, it falls under the first part of the definition, and no further notification by the State Government is required for the application of the 1992 Act.5. Role of the Committee on Fixation of Fee in Determining the Fee Structure:The Court emphasized that the Committee on Fixation of Fee, constituted as per the directions in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka and further affirmed in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, is a statutory mechanism under Section 4(2-A) of the 1992 Act. The Committee is responsible for scrutinizing and fixing the fee structure for medical and engineering courses. The University must submit its proposed fee structure along with relevant documents to the Committee, which will then determine if the fees are justified and not profiteering or charging capitation fees.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the High Court. It held that the University was not entitled to fix its own fee structure without the intervention of the Committee on Fixation of Fee as mandated by the 1992 Act. The University was directed to submit its financial details to the Committee within two weeks, and the Committee was instructed to fix the appropriate fee structure for the academic year 2013-14 onwards, including the current academic session 2018-19. The entire process was to be completed by 31.08.2018.