VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 01-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 927
927
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION
v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5133 of 2019)
JULY 01, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission
and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 – s.15 r/w. ss.3 and 7
– Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for
Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional
Institutions) Rules, 2006 –  rr. 3 and 4(v) – The Telangana Admission
and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) u/r. 4 (v) communicated
the fee structure determined by it to the State Government for
Notification – The fee structure was notified, inter-alia for the B.E.
and B. Tech Courses, for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19 –
The said fee structure was challenged by the respondent institutions
before the High Court – Single Judge of the High Court remanded
the matter to the TAFRC for reconsideration –  Pursuant thereto,
the Committee granted some escalations, however, the same was
challenged again –  Thereafter, the High Court redetermined the
fee structure for the block period itself –  Aggrieved, the State and
the fee Regulatory Committee assailed the same unsuccessfully before
the Division Bench of the High Court – On appeal, held: Judicial
review lies against the decision-making process and not the merits
of the decision itself – If the decision-making process is flawed,
inter-alia by violation of the basic principles of natural justice, is
ultra-vires the powers of the decision maker, takes into consideration
irrelevant materials or excludes relevant materials, admit materials
behind the back of the person to be affected or is such that no
reasonable persons would have taken such decision in the
circumstances, the Court may step in to correct the error by setting
aside such decision and requiring the decision maker to take a
fresh decision in accordance with the law – However, the Court, in
the garb of judicial review, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the
decision maker and make the decision itself – It cannot act as an
appellate authority of the TAFRC – Further, TAFRC is a statutory
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
body headed by a retired High Court Judge, consists of domain
experts from various fields including two from the finance sector,
one of which is from the Government – The Court should avoid to
interfere with the recommendations of an expert body, which is
accepted by the Government, unless it suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or violates any provisions of
the law under which it was constituted – In the instant case, as
demonstrated from the available records none of the grounds set
out by the High Court can be considered as making out an
exceptional case to warrant usurpation of the decision making
jurisdiction of the TAFRC by the High Court – Thus, the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with recommendation of the
TAFRC –  The orders of the High Court set aside – Judicial Review.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The crux of the controversy is the jurisdiction
and the extent to which the court can examine the determination
of the fee structure by the Telangana Admission and Fee
Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) and approved by the State
government, in exercise of the powers of judicial review. The
TAFRC, a statutory body headed by a retired High Court Judge,
consists of domain experts from various fields including two from
the finance sector, one of which is from the Government. Rule
3(vii) of Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee
(for Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional
Institutions) Rules, 2006 vests the TAFRC with the power to
frame its own procedure in accordance with regulations notified
by the Government in that regard and pursuant to which the
guidelines for fee fixation have been framed by it. The
recommendations of the TAFRC being the resultant of a quasi-
judicial decision-making process, it will undoubtedly be amenable
to the jurisdiction of the court for scrutiny by judicial review, so
as to ensure adherence to the constitutional principles of
reasonableness, fairness and adherence to the law under Article
14 of the Constitution. [Para 16] [947-B-D]
2. Judicial review, as is well known, lies against the
decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself.
If the decision-making process is flawed inter alia by violation 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.