THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.607 of 2023

JUDGMENT:- (per R. Raghunandan Rao, J)

Heard Sri C. Sudesh Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, Smt. Iswarya, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for the 3rd respondent.

2. The 1st respondent herein had established a degree college in the year 1998 and has been running the said college since then.

3. Under the present procedure, admission of students for the courses offered by a degree college in the State are to be done through online admission module, to be conducted by the 2nd respondent State Government. One of the requirements of any college to participate in such an admission process is fixation of fee that can be collected by the said college, by the appellant herein, and the subsequent notification of the said fee by the 2nd respondent State Government.

4. The appellant herein had issued a notification bearing No.02/ADMN/APHERMC/2022, dated 30.06.2022 calling upon the degree colleges in the State to submit their data online on or before 31.08.2022 along with requisite processing fee. The appellant had thereafter, by a circular dated 22.09.2022 extended the date for payment of processing fee, without penalty to 10.10.2022.

5. The 1st respondent herein failed to upload the necessary data as stipulated in the above notification. Subsequently, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 30.05.2023 to the appellant to consider its request for paying the processing fee and for fixation of the fess that can be collected by the 1st respondent for the graduate programmes being offered by the 1st respondent in its college.

6. The 1st respondent, on the ground that the appellant was not receiving the processing fee and fixing the fee, had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.14201 of 2023 with the contention that nonreceipt of the processing fee and non fixation of fees by the appellant would result in the 2nd respondent not adding the petitioner institution for allotment of students in the admission process to degree colleges and the same would result in undue hardship to the petitioner.

7. A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 16.06.2023 had passed the following interim directions, after hearing the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant herein.

"Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case is in favour of the petitioner to pass an interim order with the following directions:

• i) The petitioner is directed to pay procession fes along with penalty as per the notification dated 30.06.2022 to the respondent No.3 along with application belatedly by 17.06.2023.
• ii) On such payment, respondent No.3 is directed to recommend the eligible fee as applicable to the petitioner for the Academic Years 2023-24 to 2025-26 to the respondent No.1 within two days.
• iii) After receiving the request from the respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 shall display the petitioner college in the list of colleges at official website for participating in the counseling in UG courses for the present Academic Year 2023-24 through OAMDC."

8. The appellant, who is arrayed as the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, has moved the present appeal against the said order.

9. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant had completed the exercise of recommending fees for all the colleges, which had submitted data and processing fee for the block period 2023-24 to 2025-26, and that the appellant would not be in a position to recommend eligible / minimum fee for the petitioner college unless the 2nd respondent Government notifies fee, as recommended by the appellant. The appellant has also taken a further ground that the learned single Judge ought not to have passed the impugned order, as there has been no explanation given by the 1st respondent for not paying the processing fee for nearly one year after the notification dated 30.06.2022.

10. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, Sri C. Sudhesh Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that the appellant would not have any objection for fixation of the fees that can be collected by the petitioner. However, the said exercise cannot be completed within a period of two days granted by the learned Single Judge. He would submit that a minimum period of two weeks would be necessary for such an exercise to be completed.

11. Smt. Iswarya, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-college would submit that the appellant had received the processing fees, as directed by the learned Single Judge. She would further submit that no admission of students, to the courses offered by the college, would be possible unless the fee structure is fixed and the name of the college is included in the online admission process that would be conducted by the 2nd respondent State Government.

4

12. After submissions of both sides had been made, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the 1st respondent would agree that the fees for the college of the 1st respondent could be fixed in terms of the minimum fee that is being recommended for other colleges by the appellant, initially, and the proper fee could be fixed thereafter by the appellant to enable the 1st respondent to participate in the online admission process.

13. In that view of the matter, this writ appeal is being disposed of with the following directions:

• 1. The appellant shall tentatively, fix the fee that can be collected by the 1st respondent, for the courses offered by the 1st respondent in its college, on par with the minimum fee that is being fixed in the colleges in the State, and recommend the same to the 2nd respondent State in two days.
• 2. The said minimum fee fixed shall be treated as a tentative fee and the correct fee would be fixed by the appellant after due processing of the data submitted by the 1st respondent.
• 3. After receiving the request from the appellant, the 2nd respondent shall display the 1st respondent-college in the list of colleges at

official website for participating in the counseling in UG courses for the present Academic Year 2023-24 through OAMDC.

• 4. The 2nd respondent State Government, shall caution the students taking admission into the courses offered by the 1st respondent by informing the said students that the fee shown in the admission process, which is being collected initially, is a tentative fee and shall be subject to further change depending upon the final fee that would be fixed by the appellant.
• 5. The appellant may also consider early fixation of the final fee that can be collected by the 1st respondent for the block period 2023-24 to 2025-26.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case, shall stand closed.

_________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, ACJ

______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

21st June, 2023 Js.

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.607 of 2023

(Order of the bench is delivered by Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

21st June, 2023

Js.