Mohd.Zeeshan Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1039703
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnDec-20-2012
AppellantMohd.Zeeshan Khan
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
1 high court of madhya pradesh : jabalpur            d.b. : hon. shri justice krishn kumar lahoti &  hon. smt. justice vimla jain writ petition no.14213/2005 mohd. zeeshan khan               ……………………….   petitioner versus state of madhya pradesh and others               ........………………. respondents ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ shri k.n.fakhruddin, advocate, for the petitioner. shri p.k.kaurav, deputy advocate general for res. nos.1 to 3. shri   ajay   mishra,   senior   advocate   with   shri   gaurav   tiwari,  advocate for the respondents no.4 and 5. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ o r d e r (20/12/2012) per: smt.vimla jain, j :1. by means of this petition the petitioner calls in question, the  excess   fees   charged   by   the   respondent   no.4   college   from   the  petitioner and other students, in violation of the fees schedule fixed  by the respondent no.2.  2. the   facts   giving   rise   to   filing   of   this   writ   petition,   briefly  stated, are that petitioner had taken admission in the respondent  no.4     college   in   b.d.s.   course   in   the   year   2003­04   from   the  management quota. the fees schedule is fixed by the state govt. for  the state quota seats and the management quota seats. different  fees were fixed for different courses/quotas by the state govt. the  fees   schedule   fixed   by   the   state   govt.   for   the   academic   year  2003­04 for the management quota of the respondent no.4 college  2 was   rs.1,12,000.   the   respondent   no.4     was   no.  authorised   to  charge fee in excess of the prescribed fee. in violation of the fees  schedule of the state, the respondent no.4 had charged rs.2,44,100  for the i year and rs.2,14,000 for ii, iii and iv years as fees from  the petitioner which is evident from the certificate dated 8.10.2003,  annexure p/2 and fee receipts, annexure p/3. the respondent no.4  had also charged hostel fees and bus fees whereas the petitioner  had   no.  availed   such   facility.   the   petitioner   had   objected   to   the  excessive   fees   charged   by   the   respondent   no.4   and   had   made  various   representations   to   the   respondents.   the   petitioner   was  continuously harassed and tortured by the college management and  ultimately   he   was   forced   to   leave   the   college.     thereafter,   the  petitioner   had   requested   the   college   management   to   return   the  original   certificates   deposited   by   him   but   the   same   were   not  delivered to him. the petitioner has, therefore, challenged the act  of   the   respondent  no.4   charging   excess  fees  from   him  and  other  students   and   illegally   retaining   his   original   certificates.   the  petitioner has also prayed for award of compensation of rs.10 lac  for mental agony and for ruining his career.3. respondent no.3 university has submitted in its return that  excess fees charged by the college was illegal.4. respondents no.4 and 5 have denied the allegations made in  the petition and submitted that the committee headed by justice  s.dwivedi prescribed the tuition fees of rs.1,12,000/­ per year for  the management quota students. annexure p/2 was issued by the  college   much   prior   to   the   fees   prescribed   by   the   state   govt.   on  10.12.2004   by   annexure   p/1.   prior   to   recommendations   of   the  committee and issuance of order dated 10.12.2004, annexure p/1,  the private colleges  were  free to charge fees as per the schedule  fixed by the college.  after formation of committee and prescription  of the fees for each college, the college was charging fees as per the  3 order, annexure p/1. as far as petitioner is concerned, the total fees  paid by him was not more than the prescribed fee of complete four  years   duration   of   course.   the   respondents   denied   that   petitioner  has paid rs.2,40,000/­ in each year and submitted that excess fees,  if   any,   paid   by   the   petitioner   was   subject   to   final   adjustment  keeping in view the recommendation of the committee. they have  also   submitted   that   the   state   govt.   has   made   m.p.   medical   and  dental bachelor entrance examination rules, 2003, wherein it was  specifically   provided  that  after taking admission  if student  leaves  the course without completing the same, the fees paid and security  amount   deposited   by   the   student   shall   no.  be   refunded   and   his  original   documents   shall   only   be   returned   if   he   deposits   the  complete tuition fees of entire duration of course, i.e. 4 years.  5. the petitioner deposited total fees amounting rs.4,69,500/­  towards tuition fees, security deposit etc. as per annexure p/3 filed  by the petitioner himself whereas the committee has prescribed fee  of   rs.1,12,000/­   for   one   academic   year   which   makes   total   of  rs.4,48,000/­ for the whole course of four years excluding security  deposit and other fees. since the petitioner had initially paid fees as  per the fee schedule prescribed by the college, the amount has been  adjusted in subsequent payments and no excess amount has been  charged from the petitioner. since the petitioner has left the course  in the mid session, he is not entitled for any refund of tuition fees  paid   for   the   whole   course,   as   well   as   security   deposit   etc.   the  college had never denied return of the original documents. infact  the college came to know about this fact only when it received the  notice of the petition. the college has immediately sent letter dated  4.12.2005 to the petitioner to collect the original documents. the  postal   receipt   is   filed   as   annexure   r4/1.   the   college   has   never  charged excess fees from any student. the petition is misconceived  and deserves to be dismissed”6. we  have   considered  the   rival   submissions  made   by  learned  counsel for the parties and perused the record.7. learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that  the state government has made m.p. medical & dental bachelor  examination rules, 2003, wherein it was provided that after taking  admission if the student leaves the course without completing the  same, the fees paid and security amount deposited by the student  shall   no.  be   refunded   and   his   original   documents   shall   only   be  returned if he deposits the complete tuition fees of entire duration  of the course of four years.8. in this case, the state government is also a respondent but  they did not support the above said submission made by respondent  nos. 4 and 5. on the contrary, they enquired into the complaint  made by the petitioner. we have seen the report dated 18.9.2008 of  such enquiry.  the enquiry report reads thus :­ “the following table, in the light of order of the respondent  no.1 shall specify the excess fee charged by the respondents  no.4 and 5 :­ a. st   1     year 2003­04 (management quota candidate)     :­ particulars fee charged  fee chargeable  excess fee  rs. (a) rs.(b) charged rs.(a­ b) tuition fee 4,39,000 1,12,000 3,27,000 student fee ­      1,000 (­)  1,000 caution money ­    10,000 (­)10,000 other fee ­ ­ ­ total rs. 4,39,000 1,23,000 3,16,000 it is assumed that the petitioner being a localite was not using  hostel facilities. 5 nd b.   2      year 2004­05 (management quota candidate) :­     particulars fee charged  fee chargeable  excess fee  rs. (a) rs.(b) charged rs.(a­b) tuition fee   30,500 1,12,000 (­)81,500 student fee ­      1,000 (­)  1,000 caution money ­    ­ ­ other fee 1,15,000 ­ 1,15,000 total rs. 1,45,500 1,13,000    32,500 the above comparative chart a and b clearly indicates  that   in   the   academic   year   2003­04   the   petitioner   was  expected   to   pay   rs.1,23,000   which   included   refundable  caution money of rs.10,000 also. instead, he was made to pay  rs.4,39,000. it   is   clear   from   the   records   that   the   father   of   the  petitioner was exerted undue pressure to satisfy the demand  of respondent no.4 and 5 and had to borrow from the bank  and   other   relatives   to   satisfy   the   demand   of   the   college  authorities   and   the   college   authorities   unduly   charged  rs.3,16,000 in excess in the first year of admission itself. the   petitioner   was   expected   to   pay   rs.1,13,000   in  second year of education i.e. in 2004­05 but the college again  charged   rs.1,45,500.   the   receipt   dated   19.4.2005   discloses  charging   of   rs.1,15,000  towards  tuition  and  other  fee.  the  order   dated  10.12.2004   and  11.1.2005   do   no.  provide   any  room for “other fee”.. in this manner, the college authorities  have charged excess fee rs.3,16,000 in the year 2003­04 and  rs.32,500 in the year 2004­05”..  9. the respondents no.4 and 5 did not challenge the said report  and  could   not  submit   any  order   /  rule   of  the   state  govt.   which  could support their submissions. we are, therefore, of the view that  the submissions made by learned counsel for respondents no.4 and  5 are not sustainable.10. the   question   of   payment   of   tuition   fees   for   the   academic  session 2003­04 has been considered by the division bench of this  court in writ petition no.27726/2003  (ku. priyanka & others vs.   6 state of madhya pradesh & others) by an order dated 27/04/2007.  the division bench directed thus. “23.from   the   aforesaid   analysis,   it   will   be   clear  that even after the judgment of the supreme court  was   delivered   in   tma   pai   foundation   on  31/10/2002,   no   regulation   had   been   framed   by  the state government of madhya pradesh nor any  machinery   devised   to   determine   whether   the   fee  proposed   by   a   private   medical/dental   college   in  the state of madhya pradesh was rational and did  no.  amount   to   profiteering   or   charging   of  capitation   fee   and   in   absence   of   such   regulation  made   by   the   state   government   or   machinery  devised to determine whether the fee proposed by  a   private   medical/dental   college   in   the   state   of  madhya   pradesh   for   mbbs/bds   courses   was  rational   and   did   no.  amount   to   profiteering   or  charging   of   capitation   fee,   the   judgment   of   the  supreme court in tma pai foundation could not  be   given   effect   to   during   the   academic   year  2003­2004, and the fees payable by the students  had   to   be   determined   in   accordance   with   the  scheme in unni krishnan, which was in force for  almost a decade. 24.as   a   matter   of   fact,   the   fees   which   have   been  proposed by the private medical and dental colleges  in   the   state   of   madhya   pradesh   for   the   academic  year 2003­2004 are not rational and we cannot hold  that   the   managements   of   these   colleges   have   not  charged   capitation   fees   or   have   no.  indulged   in  profiteering. the petitioners in w.p . no.22727/2003  and wp no. 27728/2003, which are private dental  colleges   in   the   state   of   madhya   pradesh,   have  proposed fee of rs.2,75,000/­ per year for a student  admitted   to   bds   course   during   the   academic   year  2003­04   and   the   petitioner   in   wp   no.219/2005,  which   is   a   private   medical   college   in   the   state   of  madhya pradesh, has proposed fee for mbbs course  for   students   admitted   during   the   academic   year  2003­04   as   rs.3,50,000/­   per   year.   on   the   other  hand,   the   fees   fixation   committee   constituted  pursuant to the directions of the supreme court in  islamic   academic   of   education   (supra)   has  determined the fees for mbbs and bds courses for  the   students   admitted   during   the   subsequent   the  academic   years   2004­05,   2005­06   and   2006­07   at  much   lower   figures   of   rs.1,64,000/­   for   r.d.   grdi  7 medical college, ujjain, rs.1,46,000/­ for college of  dental   science   and   hospital,   indore,   and  rs.1,12,000/­   for   other   dental   colleges.   we   are,  thus, of the view that the fee of rs.2,75,000/­ per  year for bds course and rs.3,50,000/­ per year for  mbbs   course   proposed   by   the   petitioners   in   wp  no.22727/2003,   wp   no.27728/2003   and   wp   no.  219/2005 are not in accordance with the judgment  of   the   supreme   court   in   tma   pai   foundation  (supra). 25. in the result, we hold that under the scheme in  unni   krishnan,   the   state   government   had   the  authority to issue the orders dated 03/07/2003 and  09/09/2003  fixing  the  fees  for free  seats  in  mbbs  and   bds   courses   in   private   medical   and   dental  colleges in the madhya pradesh at rs.38,500/­ per  years   for   each   student   and   that   the   students  admitted to the private medical and dental colleges  in the state of madhya pradesh in the academic year  2003­04 are liable to pay such fee of rs.38,500/­ per  annum   for   the   entire   mbbs/bds   course.  accordingly,   writ   petitions   no.27726/2003,  27729/2003 and 27735/2003 filed by the students  are   allowed   and   writ   petitions   no.  27727/2003,  27728/2003   and   219/2005   filed   by   the   private  dental and medical colleges in the state of madhya  pradesh   are   dismissed.   considering   however   the  facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall  bear their own costs.”11. as the matter of payment of fees for bds course has already  been   examined   by   the   division   bench.   the   division   bench   has  held that the fees rs.38,500/­ per annum could have been charged  for the  academic session  2003­04.  in  view of  the  law laid down  by the division bench in ku. priyanka & others vs. state of madhya   pradesh & others, we find that the petitioner has made out the case  for refund of the excess fees charged by private medical and dental  college.   this   petition   also   disposed   of   finally   with   the   direction  to respondents no. 4 & 5 to refund the excess fees rs. 3,16,000/­  for the year 2003­04 and rs.32,500/­ for the year 2004­05 as found  in the para no.8 of this order, to the petitioner within a period of  two months along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of  8 filing   of   this   petition   till   the   date   of   final   payment.   in   case   the  payment   is   no.  made   within   three   months   from   today,   all   the  aforesaid   amount   shall   be   paid   along   with   interest   @   10%   per  annum  from today till the date of final payment. petitioner shall be  entitled for cost of this petition, counsel fee is fixed for rs.2000/­.12. with the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed  of.      (krishn kumar lahoti)         (smt. vimla jain)           judge                              judge manju 9 high court of madhya pradesh : jabalpur writ petition no.14213 of 2005 mohd. zeeshan khan versus state of madhya pradesh & others  o r d e r order for consideration (smt. vimla jain)       j u d g e        /12/2012 hon'ble shri justice krishn kumar lahoti (krishn kumar lahoti)    j u d g e      /12/2012 post  for:­    /12/2012 (smt. vimla jain)       j u d g e         /12/2012 1
Judgment:

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR            D.B. : Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti &  Hon. Smt. Justice Vimla Jain Writ Petition No.14213/2005 Mohd. Zeeshan Khan               ……………………….   Petitioner Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others               ........………………. Respondents ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Shri K.N.Fakhruddin, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General for res. nos.1 to 3. Shri   Ajay   Mishra,   Senior   Advocate   with   Shri   Gaurav   Tiwari,  Advocate for the respondents No.4 and 5. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ O R D E R (20/12/2012) PER: Smt.Vimla Jain, J :

1. By means of this petition the petitioner calls in question, the  excess   fees   charged   by   the   respondent   no.4   College   from   the  petitioner and other students, in violation of the fees Schedule fixed  by the respondent no.2.  2. The   facts   giving   rise   to   filing   of   this   writ   petition,   briefly  stated, are that petitioner had taken admission in the respondent  no.4     College   in   B.D.S.   course   in   the   year   2003­04   from   the  management quota. The fees schedule is fixed by the State Govt. for  the State quota seats and the management quota seats. Different  fees were fixed for different courses/quotas by the State Govt. The  fees   schedule   fixed   by   the   State   Govt.   for   the   academic   year  2003­04 for the management quota of the respondent no.4 College  2 was   Rs.1,12,000.   The   respondent   no.4     was   No.  authorised   to  charge fee in excess of the prescribed fee. In violation of the fees  schedule of the State, the respondent no.4 had charged Rs.2,44,100  for the I year and Rs.2,14,000 for II, III and IV years as fees from  the petitioner which is evident from the certificate dated 8.10.2003,  annexure P/2 and fee receipts, annexure P/3. The respondent no.4  had also charged hostel fees and bus fees whereas the petitioner  had   No.  availed   such   facility.   The   petitioner   had   objected   to   the  excessive   fees   charged   by   the   respondent   no.4   and   had   made  various   representations   to   the   respondents.   The   petitioner   was  continuously harassed and tortured by the college management and  ultimately   he   was   forced   to   leave   the   college.     Thereafter,   the  petitioner   had   requested   the   college   management   to   return   the  original   certificates   deposited   by   him   but   the   same   were   not  delivered to him. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the act  of   the   respondent  no.4   charging   excess  fees  from   him  and  other  students   and   illegally   retaining   his   original   certificates.   The  petitioner has also prayed for award of compensation of Rs.10 Lac  for mental agony and for ruining his career.

3. Respondent no.3 University has submitted in its return that  excess fees charged by the college was illegal.

4. Respondents no.4 and 5 have denied the allegations made in  the petition and submitted that the committee headed by Justice  S.Dwivedi prescribed the tuition fees of Rs.1,12,000/­ per year for  the management quota students. Annexure P/2 was issued by the  College   much   prior   to   the   fees   prescribed   by   the   State   Govt.   on  10.12.2004   by   annexure   P/1.   Prior   to   recommendations   of   the  Committee and issuance of order dated 10.12.2004, annexure P/1,  the private colleges  were  free to charge fees as per the schedule  fixed by the college.  After formation of Committee and prescription  of the fees for each college, the college was charging fees as per the  3 order, annexure P/1. As far as petitioner is concerned, the total fees  paid by him was not more than the prescribed fee of complete four  years   duration   of   course.   The   respondents   denied   that   petitioner  has paid Rs.2,40,000/­ in each year and submitted that excess fees,  if   any,   paid   by   the   petitioner   was   subject   to   final   adjustment  keeping in view the recommendation of the Committee. They have  also   submitted   that   the   State   Govt.   has   made   M.P.   Medical   and  Dental Bachelor Entrance Examination Rules, 2003, wherein it was  specifically   provided  that  after taking admission  if student  leaves  the course without completing the same, the fees paid and security  amount   deposited   by   the   student   shall   No.  be   refunded   and   his  original   documents   shall   only   be   returned   if   he   deposits   the  complete tuition fees of entire duration of course, i.e. 4 years.  5. The petitioner deposited total fees amounting Rs.4,69,500/­  towards tuition fees, security deposit etc. as per annexure P/3 filed  by the petitioner himself whereas the Committee has prescribed fee  of   Rs.1,12,000/­   for   one   academic   year   which   makes   total   of  Rs.4,48,000/­ for the whole course of four years excluding security  deposit and other fees. Since the petitioner had initially paid fees as  per the fee schedule prescribed by the college, the amount has been  adjusted in subsequent payments and no excess amount has been  charged from the petitioner. Since the petitioner has left the course  in the mid session, he is not entitled for any refund of tuition fees  paid   for   the   whole   course,   as   well   as   security   deposit   etc.   The  college had never denied return of the original documents. Infact  the college came to know about this fact only when it received the  notice of the petition. The college has immediately sent letter dated  4.12.2005 to the petitioner to collect the original documents. The  postal   receipt   is   filed   as   Annexure   R4/1.   The   college   has   never  charged excess fees from any student. The petition is misconceived  and deserves to be dismissed”

6. We  have   considered  the   rival   submissions  made   by  learned  counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that  the State Government has made M.P. Medical & Dental Bachelor  Examination Rules, 2003, wherein it was provided that after taking  admission if the student leaves the course without completing the  same, the fees paid and security amount deposited by the student  shall   No.  be   refunded   and   his   original   documents   shall   only   be  returned if he deposits the complete tuition fees of entire duration  of the course of four years.

8. In this case, the State Government is also a respondent but  they did not support the above said submission made by respondent  Nos. 4 and 5. On the contrary, they enquired into the complaint  made by the petitioner. We have seen the report dated 18.9.2008 of  such enquiry.  The enquiry report reads thus :­ “The following table, in the light of order of the respondent  no.1 shall specify the excess fee charged by the respondents  no.4 and 5 :­ A. st   1     year 2003­04 (Management quota candidate)     :­ Particulars Fee charged  Fee chargeable  Excess fee  Rs. (A) Rs.(B) charged Rs.(A­ B) Tuition fee 4,39,000 1,12,000 3,27,000 Student fee ­      1,000 (­)  1,000 Caution money ­    10,000 (­)10,000 Other fee ­ ­ ­ Total Rs. 4,39,000 1,23,000 3,16,000 It is assumed that the petitioner being a localite was not using  Hostel facilities. 5 nd B.   2      year 2004­05 (management quota candidate) :­     Particulars Fee charged  Fee chargeable  Excess fee  Rs. (A) Rs.(B) charged Rs.(A­B) Tuition fee   30,500 1,12,000 (­)81,500 Student fee ­      1,000 (­)  1,000 Caution money ­    ­ ­ Other fee 1,15,000 ­ 1,15,000 Total Rs. 1,45,500 1,13,000    32,500 The above comparative chart A and B clearly indicates  that   in   the   academic   year   2003­04   the   petitioner   was  expected   to   pay   Rs.1,23,000   which   included   refundable  caution money of Rs.10,000 also. Instead, he was made to pay  Rs.4,39,000. It   is   clear   from   the   records   that   the   father   of   the  petitioner was exerted undue pressure to satisfy the demand  of respondent no.4 and 5 and had to borrow from the bank  and   other   relatives   to   satisfy   the   demand   of   the   college  authorities   and   the   college   authorities   unduly   charged  Rs.3,16,000 in excess in the first year of admission itself. The   petitioner   was   expected   to   pay   Rs.1,13,000   in  second year of education i.e. in 2004­05 but the college again  charged   Rs.1,45,500.   The   receipt   dated   19.4.2005   discloses  charging   of   Rs.1,15,000  towards  tuition  and  other  fee.  The  order   dated  10.12.2004   and  11.1.2005   do   No.  provide   any  room for “other fee”.. In this manner, the college authorities  have charged excess fee Rs.3,16,000 in the year 2003­04 and  Rs.32,500 in the year 2004­05”..  9. The respondents no.4 and 5 did not challenge the said report  and  could   not  submit   any  order   /  rule   of  the   State  Govt.   which  could support their submissions. We are, therefore, of the view that  the submissions made by learned counsel for respondents no.4 and  5 are not sustainable.

10. The   question   of   payment   of   tuition   fees   for   the   academic  session 2003­04 has been considered by the Division Bench of this  Court in Writ Petition No.27726/2003  (Ku. Priyanka & others vs.   6 State of Madhya Pradesh & others) by an order dated 27/04/2007.  The Division Bench directed thus. “23.From   the   aforesaid   analysis,   it   will   be   clear  that even after the judgment of the Supreme Court  was   delivered   in   TMA   Pai   Foundation   on  31/10/2002,   no   regulation   had   been   framed   by  the State Government of Madhya Pradesh nor any  machinery   devised   to   determine   whether   the   fee  proposed   by   a   private   Medical/Dental   College   in  the State of Madhya Pradesh was rational and did  No.  amount   to   profiteering   or   charging   of  capitation   fee   and   in   absence   of   such   regulation  made   by   the   State   Government   or   machinery  devised to determine whether the fee proposed by  a   private   Medical/Dental   College   in   the   State   of  Madhya   Pradesh   for   MBBS/BDS   courses   was  rational   and   did   No.  amount   to   profiteering   or  charging   of   capitation   fee,   the   judgment   of   the  Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation could not  be   given   effect   to   during   the   academic   year  2003­2004, and the fees payable by the students  had   to   be   determined   in   accordance   with   the  scheme in Unni Krishnan, which was in force for  almost a decade. 24.As   a   matter   of   fact,   the   fees   which   have   been  proposed by the private Medical and Dental Colleges  in   the   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh   for   the   academic  year 2003­2004 are not rational and we cannot hold  that   the   managements   of   these   colleges   have   not  charged   capitation   fees   or   have   No.  indulged   in  profiteering. The petitioners in W.P . No.22727/2003  and WP No. 27728/2003, which are private Dental  Colleges   in   the   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh,   have  proposed fee of Rs.2,75,000/­ per year for a student  admitted   to   BDS   course   during   the   academic   year  2003­04   and   the   petitioner   in   WP   No.219/2005,  which   is   a   Private   Medical   College   in   the   State   of  Madhya Pradesh, has proposed fee for MBBS course  for   students   admitted   during   the   academic   year  2003­04   as   Rs.3,50,000/­   per   year.   On   the   other  hand,   the   Fees   Fixation   Committee   constituted  pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in  Islamic   Academic   of   Education   (supra)   has  determined the fees for MBBS and BDS courses for  the   students   admitted   during   the   subsequent   the  academic   years   2004­05,   2005­06   and   2006­07   at  much   lower   figures   of   Rs.1,64,000/­   for   R.D.   Grdi  7 Medical College, Ujjain, Rs.1,46,000/­ for college of  Dental   Science   and   Hospital,   Indore,   and  Rs.1,12,000/­   for   other   Dental   Colleges.   We   are,  thus, of the view that the fee of Rs.2,75,000/­ per  year for BDS course and Rs.3,50,000/­ per year for  MBBS   course   proposed   by   the   petitioners   in   WP  No.22727/2003,   WP   No.27728/2003   and   WP   No.  219/2005 are not in accordance with the judgment  of   the   Supreme   Court   in   TMA   Pai   Foundation  (supra). 25. In the result, we hold that under the scheme in  Unni   Krishnan,   the   State   Government   had   the  authority to issue the orders dated 03/07/2003 and  09/09/2003  fixing  the  fees  for free  seats  in  MBBS  and   BDS   courses   in   private   Medical   and   Dental  Colleges in the Madhya Pradesh at Rs.38,500/­ per  years   for   each   student   and   that   the   students  admitted to the Private Medical and Dental Colleges  in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the academic year  2003­04 are liable to pay such fee of Rs.38,500/­ per  annum   for   the   entire   MBBS/BDS   course.  Accordingly,   writ   petitions   No.27726/2003,  27729/2003 and 27735/2003 filed by the students  are   allowed   and   Writ   Petitions   No.  27727/2003,  27728/2003   and   219/2005   filed   by   the   private  Dental and Medical Colleges in the State of Madhya  Pradesh   are   dismissed.   Considering   however   the  facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall  bear their own costs.”

11. As the matter of payment of fees for BDS course has already  been   examined   by   the   Division   Bench.   The   Division   Bench   has  held that the fees Rs.38,500/­ per annum could have been charged  for the  academic session  2003­04.  In  view of  the  law laid down  by the Division Bench in Ku. Priyanka & others vs. State of Madhya   Pradesh & others, we find that the petitioner has made out the case  for refund of the excess fees charged by private Medical and Dental  College.   This   petition   also   disposed   of   finally   with   the   direction  to respondents no. 4 & 5 to refund the excess fees Rs. 3,16,000/­  for the year 2003­04 and Rs.32,500/­ for the year 2004­05 as found  in the para no.8 of this order, to the petitioner within a period of  two months along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of  8 filing   of   this   petition   till   the   date   of   final   payment.   In   case   the  payment   is   No.  made   within   three   months   from   today,   all   the  aforesaid   amount   shall   be   paid   along   with   interest   @   10%   per  annum  from today till the date of final payment. Petitioner shall be  entitled for cost of this petition, counsel fee is fixed for Rs.2000/­.

12. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed  of.      (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)         (Smt. Vimla Jain)           Judge                              Judge manju 9 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.14213 of 2005 Mohd. Zeeshan Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others  O R D E R ORDER

 FOR CONSIDERATION (Smt. Vimla Jain)       J U D G E        /12/2012 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KRISHN KUMAR LAHOTI (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)    J U D G E      /12/2012 Post  for:­    /12/2012 (Smt. Vimla Jain)       J U D G E         /12/2012 1