HYDERABAD: Deciding the fee structure at engineering colleges comes under the jurisdiction of the Telangana Admissions and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC), the Supreme Court asserted on Monday, while setting aside an earlier order passed by the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court.
The court, in the garb of judicial review, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the decision maker and take the decision by itself. Neither can it act as an appellate authority of the TAFRC, the apex court noted.In August last year, a division bench of the Hyderabad High Court upheld the order of a single judge, who directed the Telangana higher education department to fix the annual tuition fee at Vasavi and Sreenidhi engineering colleges as `1.6 lakh and `1.37 lakh per student. The judge had found fault with the TAFRC’s recommendation to fix `97,000 as the tuition fee at Vasavi engineering college.
‘Restraining TAFRC amounts to taking away regulatory jurisdiction’
The judge had directed the authorities concerned to fix `1.6 lakh — instead of `97,000 - as the tuition fee at Vasavi Engineering College. In the case of Sreenidhi college, the judge directed for the tuition fee to be fixed at `1.37 lakh. Aggrieved by this, the State government and the Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association filed appeals before the Supreme Court against the high court order which upheld the ruling of the single judge.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha, allowed the appeals by setting aside the high court order. The bench held that the high court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the recommendation of the TAFRC. In fact, the high court itself held that the procedural fairness and bona fides of the TAFRC could not be doubted, it pointed out.
“The TAFRC, as prescribed under Rule 3(ii), is headed by a retired high court judge and other members as provided therein. Rule 4 (ii) vests jurisdiction in the TAFRC to decide whether a proposed fee structure submitted by an institution was justified or not and whether it amounted to profiteering or capitation fee. To prune the jurisdiction of the TAFRC by restraining it from examining and scrutinising the statement of accounts to decide the justification of the proposed fee structure, and confining its role to mere perusal and comments, will amount to taking away its regulatory jurisdiction completely. The object of the TAFRC is to ensure a justified fee structure which does not reflect profiteering and capitation fee,” the bench observed.
While allowing the appeals, the bench said the recommendation of the TAFRC, dated Feb 4, 2017, for the block period 2016-2017 and 2018-2019, were restored. The bank guarantees furnished by the institutions, as per the interim order of the high court, were required to be activated, and action taken in accordance with the law for protection of the students’ interests, the bench added.
HC exceeded its jurisdiction: SC Bench
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha, held that the high court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the recommendation of the TAFRC. In fact, the high court itself held that the procedural fairness and bona fides of the TAFRC could not be doubted, the Apex Court pointed out