VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, an advocate, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10632/2012 (Sachin Mehta Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.), registered as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has challenged the action of Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences & Technology, RIICO Institutional Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent -University', for short), in notifying fee structure decided by the 'Fee Fixation Committee' of the respondent -University, for the candidates selected for admission in Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS, for short) and Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS, for short) Courses in Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur and Mahatma Gandhi Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur - educational establishments of respondent -University. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12956/2012 (Aditya Singhal Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors.) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12958/2012 (Saurabh Badaya Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors.), the petitioners have challenged the same notification dated 13th July, 2012 whereby the fee of MBBS Course has been enhanced from Rs. 2.95 lacs to Rs. 6 lacs per year. Since, all the above -mentioned three petitions involve common question of facts and law relating to fee structure for admission to MBBS and BDS Course in Private Medical College(s), therefore, have been taken up together for adjudication.
(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the facts of D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10632/2012 (Sachin Mehta Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors.) registered as Public Interest Litigation, shall be referred. The petitioner stating himself to be a public spirited citizen, has challenged the notice published by the respondent -University, notifying the fee structure decided by the 'Fee Fixation Committee' constituted by the respondent -University, for the candidates selected for admission in MBBS in Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur and Mahatma Gandhi Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur - educational establishments of respondent -University. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the essential facts for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the respondent -University by a publication in the daily newspaper "Rajasthan Patrika " dated 13th July, 2013, has raised the annual tuition fee for the MBBS Course from Rs. 2.95 lacs per annum per student to Rs.6.00 lacs per annum per student. It is further contended that most of the Private Technical and Medical Educational Institutions in the State have transformed themselves into commercial business centres rather than centres of learning. Referring to the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in Islamic Academy of Education Versus State of Karnataka; (2003) 6 SCC 697, it is highlighted that the State Governments of the Country were directed to constitute a Committee headed by a Retired High Court Judge, who shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State, and other members to be nominated by the Judge, a Chartered Accountant of repute and a representative of the Medical Council of India or All India Council for Technical Education, as the case may be, for determination of fee structure in private educational institutions. Further, the Institutions are supposed to place their proposed fee structure before this Committee and the Committee would then decide the fee structure as may be chargeable by the Private Institute. It is further stated that the Committee so constituted in the State of Rajasthan has determined, for the present, fee for Medical College(s) not more than Rs. 2.95 lacs per annum per student for MBBS Course whereas the respondent -University suo -moto and without any authority of law, constituted a 'Fee Fixation Committee' and has decided fee to the tune of Rs. 6.00 lacs per annum per student, which is highly exorbitant and far much over and above the fee determined by the 'Fee Regulatory Committee' for the State of Rajasthan.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the contents of the writ applications vehemently argued that the moot question for determination is: - "Whether the respondent -University could decide its own fee structure contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in a catena of judgements? ;