Summary
The High Court exceeded judicial-review limits by replacing the expert fee committee’s determination with its own accounting and fee calculations without finding illegality, procedural unfairness or perversity. The Telangana committee could scrutinise institutional accounts and permissible staffing costs while allowing reasonable development surplus and preventing profiteering. Its uniform ₹97,000 annual fee recommendation for the relevant three-year block was restored, with bank guarantees to be activated to protect students.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could substitute its own fee calculation for the expert regulatory committee’s determination.
- Whether scrutiny of accounts, staffing costs and reasonable surplus fell within the committee’s regulatory jurisdiction.
Provisions considered
- Rule 4(ii) and (iv), Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006Empowered scrutiny of justified fees, prevention of profiteering and consideration of costs and reasonable developmental surplus. (¶¶ 9, 13–15)
Held
- The institutions were consulted and supplied calculation sheets; the High Court found no violation of the governing law, guidelines, natural justice or accounting principles. A preferred alternative computation did not justify substituting judicial calculations. (¶ 11–12)
- The committee acted within its remit in examining teachers’ permissible strength and qualifications and in scrutinising accounts. Institutional flexibility did not remove the regulator’s power to distinguish reasonable financial gain from profiteering. (¶ 13–15)
- Expert financial determinations remain reviewable for illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness and procedural defects. Judicial review ordinarily corrects the process through reconsideration rather than assuming the authority’s decision-making function; no exceptional justification existed here. (¶ 16–25)
- The committee’s recommendation was restored, and the institutions’ subsisting bank guarantees required activation and lawful consequential action for student protection. (¶ 26–27)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside. TAFRC recommendation dated 4 February 2017, fixing ₹97,000 annually per student for the 2016–17 to 2018–19 block, restored. Bank guarantees to be activated and acted upon in accordance with law to protect students. No costs.