Sahil Bhargava & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Order
1. The dispute in the present case relates to the fixation of the fee for
the undergraduate medical degree course offered by a college
in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners are students who
were granted admission in 2018 to the undergraduate medical
degree course administered by the third respondent - Shri Guru
Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences College. The
students completed the course in 2023. The second respondent
is the Shri Guru Ram Rai University, a university governed by
an Act of the state legislature, 1 of which the third respondent is
a constituent college.
2. The state legislature enacted the Uttarakhand Unaided Private
Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission
and Fixation of Fee) Act in 2006. The Act applies to “unaided
private professional educational institutions in the state which
are affiliated to state-funded universities, councils, boards or other
bodies established under law, excluding minority institutions”. 2 The
Act establishes an ‘Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee’, which
inter alia determines the fees for admission to professional courses
of private institutions. 3 The Act also provides for the constitution
of an appellate authority to hear appeals against the orders of the
Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee. 4
3. On 4 April 2018, a nodal agency appointed by the State Government
prescribed the fee structure for the undergraduate medical courses
of seven medical colleges, including the third respondent. The fee
structure as posted by the nodal agency on their website (Annexure
P-2) prescribed a fee of rupees four lakhs for State quota seats and
rupees five lakhs for the All India quota seats.
4. These fees and allied issues were the subject matter of writ
petitions filed by the second and third respondents before the
1 Shri Guru Ram Rai University Act 2016, Uttarakhand Act No. 03 of 2017.
2 S.2, Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission &
Fixation of Fee) Act.
3 S.4, Ibid.
4 S.12, Ibid.
Sahil Bhargava & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Uttarakhand High Court. 5 The High Court, by an interim order
directed that admissions may be carried out and the fee collected
will be subject to the final outcome of the Writ petition.
5. In March 2019, the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee
fixed the fees for the academic years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and
2021-2022 at Rs 13.22 lakhs per annum for the All India quota
and Rs 9.78 lakhs per annum for the State quota. The principal
of the third-respondent college preferred an appeal before the
appellate authority contending inter alia that the committee had
erred by failing to fix the same fee for the academic year 2018-19
for the undergraduate medical degree course. By an Order dated
25 February 2023, the appellate authority affirmed the fee structure
and further directed that the same fees also be charged for the
academic year 2018- 2019.
6. Letters were addressed by the college principal on 1 March 2023
asking all the petitioners to pay outstanding fees of Rs. 36.99 lakhs
for the All India quota students and Rs 26.01 lakhs for the State
quota students, in accordance with the revised fees fixed by the
committee and affirmed by the appellate authority.
7. The petitioners instituted Writ Petitions before the High Court
challenging the order of the appellate authority, the letter dated 1
March 2023 and seeking a direction to the respondents to issue
undergraduate degrees to the petitioners without insistence on any
extra payment of tuition fee.6 On 22 March 2023, the High Court
rejected the prayer to stay the order of the appellate authority
and directed the petitioners to deposit the fees in three equal
installments. By a subsequent interim order dated 3 April 2023,
the High Court directed the petitioners to deposit the amount in
nine equal installments instead of three installments. The order
also records the statement of the counsel, that on the payment
of the first installment, the second and third respondents would
issue a provisional certificate for completion of the undergraduate
medical degree course to the petitioners, and they would be
permitted to begin their internships.
5 WPMS No. 933/2018; WPMS No. 1789/2018.
6 WPMS No. 755/2023.
412 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
8. The interim order of the High Court dated 3 April 2023 was challenged
by the petitioners before this Court. An order dated 28 April 2023
was passed in SLP (C) No 8760 of 2023 permitting the petitioners
to continue the internship programme subject to the deposit of two
installments in terms of the interim order of the High Court. The
High Court was, however, requested to dispose of the pending Writ
Petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months
from the date of the order.
9. When the petition came up before the High Court on 26 August 2024,
by the impugned order, the High Court admitted the Writ Petitions.
The High Court posted the matter to be listed in March 2025 and
further directed that subject to the deposit of the fee, the original
documents submitted by the petitioners to the university at the time
of admission, would be returned.
10. We have heard Mr Gaurav Aggarwal, senior counsel appearing on
behalf of ninety- one petitioners before this Court in these proceedings
and Mr Gopal Sankarnarayanan, senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the second and third respondents.
11. The original fee when the students took admission was Rs five lakhs
per annum for the All India quota seats and Rs four lakhs per annum,
for the State quota seats. The fee structure as posted by the nodal
agency on their website (Annexure P-2) indicated that this fee was
subject to the final decision in the writ petitions which were pending
before the High Court.
12. The challenge to the fixation of fees is yet to attain finality since the
students’ petitions have been admitted by the High Court. In the
meantime, it is common ground that the petitioners have paid an
amount of approximately Rs 34 lakhs per student for the All-India
quota seats and approximately Rs 28 lakhs per student for the State
quota seats.
13. Mr Gaurav Aggarwal, senior counsel states that the above figure, as
indicated to the court, is inclusive of:
(i) The security deposit of Rs three lakhs which has been adjusted;
and
(ii) Two installments which were paid in pursuance of the order of
this Court dated 28 April 2023.
Sahil Bhargava & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
14. At this stage, bearing in mind the above amounts which have been
paid, we are of the view that an equitable interim order which will
apply during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court
should be passed so as to enable the students to obtain the return
of their original documents to pursue their postgraduate studies and
practice medicine. Absent such a direction, the students, despite
having completed their undergraduate medical studies and internship,
would not be able to either pursue medicine or secure admission for
higher studies. The order of this Court dated 28 April 2023 sought
to obviate such an imbroglio by issuing a direction for the deposit of
two installments of fees and requested the High Court to dispose
of the petition. Instead of doing so, the High Court simply admitted
the petition and posted it to March 2025. No early resolution of the
dispute seems likely. The students cannot be left in the lurch to an
uncertain future.
15. We accordingly direct that conditional on the petitioners depositing an
amount of Rs 7.50 lakhs each with the second and third respondents
over and above the amounts which have already been deposited, they
shall be entitled to a return of their original documents submitted at
the time of obtaining admission. This is subject to the condition that
the petitioners shall file an undertaking to pay the balance amount
in the event that they are called upon to do so at the final disposal
of the pending writ petitions.
16. The interim order of the High Court shall stand modified in the above
terms. It is clarified that this order does not express any opinion on the
merits of the underlying writ petitions pending before the High Court.
17. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the Case: Special Leave Petition disposed of.
†