IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.26677 OF 2014 BETWEEN The Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Law, rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent.
... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary High Educational Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. And others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Suresh Anand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Other respondents are not necessary parties, in view of the limited grievance of the petitioner primarily sought for against respondent No.3.
2. Petitioner-Institute of law is stated to have been established since 1992 and initially they were imparting three years course of law and now they are imparting five years course as well since 1996. Respondent No.3, through its Member Secretary, invited proposals from the petitioner, with respect to fees to be fixed by the Private Un-Aided LL.B/B.L (3/5 years) & LL.M/M.L Colleges for the block period 2014-15 to 2016-17. The proposals were invited on 20.01.2014 informing the petitioner that the last date specified is 11.02.2014 before which the proposal must reach the Principal Secretary to enable respondent No.3 to consider the said proposal. It is, however, stated in the affidavit of the petitioner that he could not receive the said communication and thereby could not apply before the due date.
It is also stated that the Principal, who was looking after the affairs of the College, had fallen sick and on account of these reasons the proposals could not be submitted within the time stipulated. However, petitioner states that it has submitted proposals on 11.06.2014 together with the processing fee. Respondent No.3 had considered the said proposal under the impugned proceedings dated 26.07.2014 in the meeting of AFRC held on 15.07.2014, but it was of the view that since the proposals were sent by the petitioner long after due date, the same could not be considered. Aggrieved by the rejection, as aforesaid, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-college is imparting education since two decades and on account of the impugned order, the fee structure of the petitioner is not yet fixed and the petitioner may lose opportunity of admitting students though its intake capacity of 80 students per class is sanctioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on account of the delay, which has occurred in the circumstances as explained in the affidavit, respondent No.3 could have considered the proposals submitted as early as on 11.06.2014 by imposing a least penalty on the petitioner for the delay. He further submits that since the counseling is about to commence, the petitioner would be seriously prejudiced if their fee proposals is not considered on par with all other colleges similarly situated.
4. Learned Standing Counsel, however, states that as an exception, this case will be considered by respondent No.3, on facts, subject to appropriate penalty being imposed on the petitioner as per the discretion of respondent No.3.
5. In view of the said fair submission, the writ petition is disposed of and the impugned order is set aside with the following directions:
1. Petitioner’s fee proposal shall stand remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration subject, of course, to respondent No.3 levying penalty for the delayed submission on the petitioner and such penalty shall be paid by the petitioner as soon as intimated accordingly.
2. Respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to fix the fee structure by taking into consideration all attending circumstances; to consider the petitioner’s proposal at the earliest; and to pass appropriate orders preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3. Pending consideration of the said proposal, as directed above, by respondent No.3, petitioner is permitted to charge and collect provisional fees from the students of LL.B (3/5 years) at the rate of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only) per student, subject to the final orders to be passed by respondent No.3.
4. The petitioner-college shall also file appropriate undertaking before respondent No.3 to abide by its decision on the proposals.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 8, 2014 LMV