T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 09-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND CRS. ETC. 
AUGUST 9, 1996 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Education : 
P1ivate professional colleges imparting education in Medical, Engi11eer-
C ing and ot/zer professio11al course;~Admissio11 to and fixation of fee-Direc-
tions gi.ven in addition to, in .continuation and in clarification of earlier 
ordm·• including tlze order dated Jl.8.1985 as ct1ended by order dated 
10.5.1996. 
Unnikrishna11, J.P. & Ors. v. State of A11dl!ra Pradesh & Ors., (1993] 1 
D sec 645, followed. 
*T.MA. Pai Foundation & Ors. Etc. v. State of Kamataka & Ols. Etc, 
[1993] 4 sec 276; (1994] 4 sec 728; [1995] 5 sec 220, referred to. 
('VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Applicalion 
E 
Nos. 24, 41A 43-49 and 51-65. 
In 
Writ Petition (C) No. 317 of 1993 Etc. Etc. 
F 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
V:R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, N.N. Goswami, F.S. 
Nariman, R.F. Nariman, Ms. Indira J aisingh, S.K. Dholakia, Rajeev 
Dhawan, V.A. Bobde, H.N. Salve, P.P. Rao, Sr. Advs., L.R. Singh, M. 
Veerappa, Arun K. Sharma, D.M. Popat, Dhavesh V. Panjwani, P.H. 
G Parekh, Sameer Parekh, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Shruti Pandey, Ms. Anita, 
D.M. Nargolkar, S.M. Jadhav, Makarand D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, Ejaz 
Maqbool, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Alok Singh, V.B. Joshi, 
Umesh Bhagwat, Syed Ali Ahmed, Syed Tanweer Ahmed, Mohan Pandey, 
Brijender Singh Chahar, Ashok Mathur, Ms. Lalita Kam.hik, Kailash Vas-
H dev P. Parmeswaran, A.K. Panda, Indeevar Goodwill, Bharat Sangal, Dr. 
436 
T.M.A PAI FOUNDATION v. STATE 
437 
Roxna Swamy, S.R. Bhat, P. Mahale, T.C. Sharma, P.R. Ramasesh, K.R. A 
Nagaraja, B. Parthasarthy, Ranjit Kumar, A. Mariarputham, Mrs. Aruna 
Mathur, Raj Kr. Mehta, Ms. Kiran Suri, Ms. Bina Gupta Rajeev Kr. 
Sharma, B.B. Singh, R.B. Misra, Mrs. Ranicchhabra, Ravindra Kumar, 
A.V. Rarigam, A.S. Bhasme, A.M. Kbanwilkar, M.J. Paul, Mrs. V.D. 
Kbanna, Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar, Arnn K. Sinha, K.R. Chowdhary, K. Ram B 
Kumar, L. Nageshwara Rao, Krishan Mahajan, Suk Sagar, M.K. Dua, (R. 
Karanjawala) for Mrs. M. Karanjawala, L.K. Pandey, E.C. Vidya Sagar, 
K.S. Parihar, H.S. Parihar, P.P. Singh, S.N. Bhat, Ms. Abha, R. Sharma, 
G.K. Bansal and Sanjay Bansal for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
In Unnikrishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1993] 
c 
1 S.C.C. 645, a Constitution Bench of this Court had evolved a scheme 
governing admission to private medical engineering and certain other 
colleges, keeping in view the positive features of the relevant Central and D 
State enactments. The idea behind the scheme has been set out in Para-
graph 205 of the judgment. In Paragraph 206, it was stated that the scheme 
evolved therein "is in the nature of guidelines which the appropriate 
governments and recognising and affiliating authorities shall impose and 
implement in addition to such other conditions and stipulations as they may 
think appropriate as conditions for grant of permission, grant of recogni-
E 
tion or grant of affiliation, as the case may be". Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of 
Paragraph 6 of the Scheme, in particular, dealt with the fees to be charged 
by the professional colleges. It would be appropriate if we extract the said 
clauses : 
"( 6)( a) Every State Government shall forthwith constitute a Com-
mittee to fix the ceiling on the fees chargeable by a professional 
college or class of professional colleges, as the case may be. The 
Committee shall consist of a Vice-Chancellor, Secretary for Educa-
F 
tion (or such Joint Secretary, as he may nominate) and Director,' G 
Medical Education/Director Technical Education. The Committee 
shall make such enquiry as it thinks appropriate. It shall, however, 
given opportunity to the professional colleges (or their associa-
tion(s), if any) to place such material, as they think fit. It shall, 
however, not be bound to give any personal hearing to anyone or 
follow any technical rules of law. The Committee shall fix the fee H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
once every three years or at such !auger inilervals, as it may think 
appropriate. 
(b) It would be appropriate if the U.G.C. frames regulations under 
Section 12-A(3) of the U.G.C. Act, regulaling the fees which the 
affiliated colleges, operating on no-grant-in.-aid basis, are entitled 
to charge. The Council for Technical
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.