,,,,,
1. Heard Mr. A. Ushi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.B. Ramachandranlal, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 10,",,,,,
Mr. Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 and Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy,",,,,,
learned Standing Counsel for TAFRC appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.,,,,,
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in fixing / continuing the fees payable by the students to the petitioner College for,,,,,
the academic year 2018-19 as continued in the letter dated 21.11.2016 of respondent No.1 as illegal, and for a consequential direction to respondent",,,,,
No.1 to notify and fix the fee payable by the students of LL.B., Three Year Course at Rs.22,000/-; Rs.17,000/- for LL.B., Five Year Course and",,,,,
Rs.30,000/- for LL.M., Course for the academic year 2018-19 (Block Period of 2016-17 to 2018-19).",,,,,
3. According to the petitioner, LAWCET/PGLCET-2018 was conducted on 25.05.2018 and results were declared on 14.06.2018. Respondent No.3",,,,,
officials may conduct counselling for admission of students into LL.B., Three-Year, Five-Year and LL.M. Courses during the relevant time. Thought",,,,,
respondent No.2 fixed the fee and send the proposal, respondent No.1 failed to notify the same. Therefore, the students were in dark and they were",,,,,
not in a position to pay fee by exercising their options properly.,,,,,
4. Pursuant to the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide G.O.Ms.No.6 of Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 08.01.2007,",,,,,
respondent No.1 framed A.P. Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses Offered in Private Unaided Professional,,,,,
Institutions) Rules, 2006. The State of Telangana had also constituted respondent No.2 i.e., Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee and",,,,,
appointed Chairman and Members. Respondent No.2 has to fix fee by following the procedure laid down under the aforesaid Rules on consideration,,,,,
of various aspects.,,,,,
5. In the present case, Petitioner College had submitted proposals to respondent No.2 along with relevant material showing the intake of students",,,,,
admitted for the aforesaid period. On consideration of the same, respondent No.2 has fixed i.e., Rs.22,000/- for Three-Year LL.B., Course;",,,,,
Rs.17,000/- for Five-Year LL.B., Course and Rs.30,000/- for LL.M., Course for the block 2016-17 to 2018-19 to the petitioner College. Though the",,,,,
same was fixed by respondent No.2 and submitted, respondent No.1 failed to notify the same.",,,,,
6. According to the Petitioner College, respondent No.1 has no role except notifying the said fee fixed by respondent No.2 by issuing G.O. Instead of",,,,,
issuing G.O., respondent No.1 slept over the same. Therefore, the students were kept in dark. They are not in a position to exercise their options",,,,,
properly. Even for the earlier block period also, since respondent No.1 failed to notify the fee, therefore, the Petitioner College has filed writ petition",,,,,
and obtained interim order. Even for the academic year 2017-18, the petitioner had filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.20813 of 2017, questioning the",,,,,
action of respondent No.1 in not fixing/continuing fee payable by the students to the petitioner college for the academic year 2018-19, as continued in",,,,,
the letter dated 21.11.2016. This Court granted interim order. The said writ petition is also pending. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner filed",,,,,
the present writ petition.,,,,,
7. The petitioner herein has also filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1 of 2018 seeking a direction to permit the petitioner’s college to,,,,,
collect fee as determined and fixed by respondent No.2 payable by the students for the LL.B.. Three-Year Course at Rs.22,000/-; for B.L., Five-",,,,,
Year Course at Rs.17,000/-; and for LL.M., Course at Rs.30,000/- for the academic year 2018-19, and for a consequential direction to respondent",,,,,
No.3 to indicate the fee as fixed by respondent No.2 during the admission of students at the time of counseling. This Court granted interim order on,,,,,
02.07.2018. According to learned counsel, pursuant to the said interim order, the Petitioner College has collected the aforesaid fee as fixed by",,,,,
respondent No.2. According to him, respondent No.1 has slept over the recommendation of respondent No.2 by notifying the same which is a",,,,,
formality.,,,,,
8. During the pendency of the present writ petition, respondent Nos.6 to 10 have filed implead application vide I.A. No.1 of 2021 stating that they are",,,,,
the students of the petitioner college, they have completed their three-year law course during the period 2016-19. Even on completion of their course",,,,,
and payment of fee, the petitioner is not returning original certificates pertaining to SSC, Intermediate, Degree and LL.B. Degree. Therefore, they are",,,,,
seeking a direction to the petitioner college to return the aforesaid certificates. According to them, the petitioner college has no power to withhold the",,,,,
said certificates.,,,,,
9. Despite granting ample opportunity, respondent No.1 did not file counter. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition against",,,,,
respondent No.1 is that though respondent No.2 fixed the fee and sent the proposal, respondent No.1 did not notify the same by issuing a G.O.",,,,,
Respondent No.1 did not produce a copy of the said G.O. notifying the fee as fixed by respondent No.2 for the academic year 2018-19.,,,,,
10. In several matters, respondent No.2 is not fixing the fee as per the procedure laid down under G.O.Ms.6 dated 08.01.2007 and in some cases",,,,,
though respondent No.2 fixed the fee, respondent No.1 is not notifying the same by way of issuing a G.O. As rightly contended by the learned counsel",,,,,
for the petitioner that, respondent No.1 has no role in fixing the fee and it is for respondent No.2 has to fix the fee considering several aspects in terms",,,,,
of the aforesaid Rules, 2006. Though, respondent No.2 submitted proposals, respondent No.1 did not notify the same. Due to the said inaction on the",,,,,
part of respondent No.1, the petitioner and several other colleges are coming to this Court by filing writ petitions. Students are in dark. They are not in",,,,,
a position to exercise their options properly by going through the fee structure. In view of the same, respondent No.1 shall look into the matter and",,,,,
issue G.Os., from time to time notifying the fee fixed by respondent No.2 on receipt of proposals as early as possible, so that the students can exercise",,,,,
their options properly.,,,,,
11. In Yeachu Sunil v. The State of Telangana, represented by its Chief Secretary Order dated 22.11.2016 in W.P. No.39922 of 2016 filed against the",,,,,
respondents including the petitioner college herein, this Court, recording the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Higher",,,,,
Education and also Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, held as follows:",,,,,
“7. There is some merit in the concern expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the ambiguity in applicability of fee, lot of",,,,,
students may have been disturbed and were not sure in taking admission as there was no clarity on fee to be paid.,,,,,
8. In view of the clarification now issued by the Government, the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education, may issue a statement through",,,,,
daily newspapers about the decision of the Government in observing the fee structure already determined for previous academic year. The Telangana,,,,,
Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee is also directed to give vide publicity through daily newspapers and also to upload the fee structure on the,,,,,
website of TSAFRC and Convener, LAWCET and also intimate to all the Law Colleges.â€",,,,,
12. As discussed above, the present writ petition pertains to the academic year 2018-19. This Court had granted interim order on 02.07.2018 i.e., to",,,,,
collect the fee as determined and fixed by respondent No.2 payable by the students for LL.B., Three-Year Course at Rs.22,000/-; LL.B. Five-Year",,,,,
Course at Rs.17,000/- and LL.M. Course at Rs.30,000/- for the academic year 2018-19, and also a direction to respondent No.3 Convener to indicate",,,,,
Sl.
No",Name of the student,Class,"Fee to be paid for entire
three year course","Actual fee
paid","Difference of
amount
due
1.,Lingaiah Miryala,"LL.B., 3YDC","67,500/- (Rs.22,500 x 3)","34,500/-","33,000/-
2.,G. Giridhar,-do-,-do-,"67,500/-",--
3.,V. Sampathkumar,-do-,-do-,"36,300/-","31,200/-
4.,B.Subba Reddy,-do-,-do-,-do-,-do-
5.,Bingi Dasharatha,-do-,-do-,-do-,-do-
