(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent Fee Committee in Proceedings in PROC.NO.CFF/MBBS Course/Fees/018/2025 dated 12.06.2025, quash the same insofar as it fixes the fees to be charged by the 2nd Petitioner Institution for offering the M.B.B.S course and consequently direct the 3rd respondent counselling authority to include the 2nd petitioner Institution in the counselling process for admission of students into the M.B.B.S course in the forthcoming academic years by communicating the fee fixed by the 1st Petitioner University for offering the MBBS course in the 2nd Petitioner Institution.)

Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

1. Shri.Venkateswara University, governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act, 2019, was permitted by the National Medical Commission to run Medical College with a sanctioned strength of 150 students, vide letter of permission dated 23.08.2022. The fees for the students admitted in the college were subjected to the recommendation of the Committee on Fixation of Fee in respect of self-financing Colleges. The said Fees Fixation Committee issued proceedings dated 15.10.2022, fixing the fees for the academic years 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025.

2. For the academic year 2025-2026, the Fees Fixation Committee convened a meeting with the stakeholders to discuss about the fixation of fees for the UG and PG Medical courses offered by the Self-Financing Medical Colleges. After deliberations and considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust and others vs. Committee for Fixation of Fee Structure for Private Colleges and others, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 501, the Committee, in its proceedings dated 12.06.2025, recommended the maximum fees to be collected by the respective private colleges as per the classification given in the table. The said proceedings are the subject matter under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. The prime contention of the writ petitioner University is that it had given representations on various dates, before and after the impugned proceedings, emphasizing that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, later clarified in the Islamic Academy of Education case, had directed the State Government to constitute Committee for fees structure only as a stop-gap arrangement till appropriate legislation is framed by the State Government. Further, the clarification given by the Seven-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharastra and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537, clearly indicates that the power of the Fee Committee to recommend fee structure is only a stop-gap arrangement made in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, until suitable legislation or regulation is framed by the States. While so, the Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act, 2019, is the appropriate legislation which contains provisions including fixation of Fees. Therefore, the Fees Fixation Committee has lost its jurisdiction to recommend the fees structure for the writ petitioner University, which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Private University Act, 2019.

4. That apart, the writ petitioner further alleges that the fees fixed by the Committee suffer from arbitrariness and non-application of mind, since the expenses incurred by the petitioner University, the ratio of seats allotted to students of Tamil Nadu domicile and the expenditure incurred by the University to keep up the standards prescribed by the National Medical Commission were not considered. That apart, the differential treatment between the students under the Government Quota and the Management Quota is contrary and in violation of the bar on cross-subsidization, which has been held as illegal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. The Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act, 2019, was enacted to establish and incorporate in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Green field Universities of unitary nature in private sector by the sponsoring bodies, viz., Trusts, Societies or not for profit companies to promote, conceptualise and bring about a paradigm shift through development of outstanding leadership, Research, Knowledge and Ideas for Education and allied development sectors and also to provide world-class Higher Educational Institutions in the State. Though the power of the private university includes to prescribe, demand and receive payment of fees and other charges, such power is not unfettered power or a composite provision for fixation of fees. Whereas, the Fees Fixation Committee which is creation of judicial order, caters to fix fees for every individual institution after considering the relevant data such as infrastructure facilities, number of seats permitted for admission and expenditures under major heads including salary, allowance, electricity charges, Telephone etc. The students admitted in these colleges are classified under three categories, namely, Government seats, Management seats and NRI seats. Taking into consideration the overall expenditure and the number of seats under each category, the fees are fixed based on the data of the Committee.

6. The Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in a social welfare State, where inequality prevails both socially and economically, the object is to achieve minimum welfare to maximum persons. Different fees prescribed for each category of students cannot be considered as crosssubsidization or illegal. The Private Universities cannot claim absolute autonomy insofar as the collection of fees from the candidates. If such absolute autonomy is given to them, there will not only be absolute exploitation of the students but also deprivation of educational right for deserving students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections and socially backward classes. Hence, balancing the interests of the common people, a certain percentage of the seats are earmarked for the Government quota for which lesser fees are prescribed. At the same time, substantial percentage of seats are earmarked for NRI candidates, from whom higher fees are collected. Nowhere in the Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act, is there any provision for determining reasonable fees for the three different categories contemplated or prescribed. Therefore, it is incorrect to plead that, after the advent of Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act, the purpose of Fees Fixation Committee is taken care by the legislation namely, Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

8. Regarding the fixation of fees in the Private Colleges, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697, has clarified the legal position regarding fixing of fees in the following terms:

                     “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. 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 T.M.A. Pai case [(2002) 8 SCC 481] 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 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. 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 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.”

9. When the scheme of permanent committee was set up pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2005 (6) SCC 537, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded as under:

                     “147. In our considered view, on the basis of judgment in Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481] and various previous judgments of this Court which have been taken into consideration in that case, the scheme evolved out of setting up the two Committees for regulating admissions and determining fee structure by the judgment in Islamic Academy [(2003) 6 SCC 697] cannot be faulted either on the ground of alleged infringement of Article 19(1)(g) in case of unaided professional educational institutions of both categories and Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 30 in case of unaided professional institutions of minorities.

                     148. A fortiori, we do not see any impediment to the constitution of the Committees as a stopgap or ad hoc arrangement made in exercise of the power conferred on this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution until a suitable legislation or regulation framed by the State steps in. Such Committees cannot be equated with Unni Krishnan [(1993) 1 SCC 645] Committees which were supposed to be permanent in nature.”

10. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that, at paragraph No.148 of the judgment in P.A.Inamdar cited supra, the Seven- Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the constitution of fees committee is only a stop-gap or ad hoc arrangement until suitable legislation or regulation framed by the State. Such a Fees Committee cannot be equated with the permanent committee constituted under the Unni Krishna’s case. No doubt, Seven-Judges Branch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Constitution of the Fees Fixation Committee as a stop-gap or ad hoc arrangement till suitable legislation or regulation was framed. However, on testing whether the Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act, 2019, contains any legislation or regulation for fixation of fees, we find that Section 13, deals with the powers of Private Universities. In Clause (q) the Private University given power to prescribe, demand and receive payment of fees and other charges.

11. Section 33(e) confers power on the Executive Council to make ordinances in respect of the fees to be charged for the courses of study in the Private University and for admission to the examinations, degrees, diplomas and certificates of the Private University.

12. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to Section 33(e) which has conferred the ordinances power on the Executive Council and Section 26 which deals with composition of the Executive Council, contended that the Private Universities, through their Executive Council have absolute power for fixing the fees for the courses of study.

13. We are of the view that the power to make ordinances, which is vested with the Executive Council is to be exercised in consultation with the Management Committee. This power is neither an absolute power nor an adequate power for fixation of fees for the different categories of seats which includes the Government Quota and the NRI Quota.

14. On examination of the ordinance power conferred on the Executive Council, we find that it covers various heads, including fees for admission to examinations, degrees, diplomas and certificates as well as remuneration to be paid to the examiners, moderators, invigilators and tabulators. That apart, power to formulate conditions for the award of fellowships, scholarship and studentships, medals and prizes and the conduct of examinations, including the term of office, manner of appointment and duties of examining bodies, examiners and moderators also vest with the Executive Council.

15. The ordinance making power to fix fees to be charged for courses of study in the Private Universities, without prescribing the criteria for fixation of fees, cannot substitute the existing scheme formulated under the Fees Fixation Committee regulations. Only if the statute is self-contained and adequate alternate to the Fees Fixation Committee, it could be construed as appropriate legislation in the place of existing temporary committee, namely Fees Fixation Committee. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that, on the advent of the Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act, 2019, the Fees Fixation Committee has lost its jurisdiction over the Private Universities is without any merits. The reason for directing the States to constitute Fees Fixation Committee and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, satisfactorily functioning by taking into consideration the interests of the students, interests of the Management and the welfare of the State. Unless and until legislation which is equally effective and an adequate substitute to the Fees Fixation Committee, there is no reason to hold that the Committee has no jurisdiction in respect of private Universities established under the Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act, 2019. The Fees Fixation Committee is not to smother the financial bloodline of Private Universities. It is to regulate the fund flow by balancing the interests of all the stakeholders. The Executive Council of the Private Universities constituted under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Private Universities Act, 2019, is not a representative committee of all the stakeholders or a neutral committee like the Fees Fixation Committee.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.