Milu P. Anil and others v. State of Kerala and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A.M. Shaffique
- P. Somarajan
- Judgment Date
- 2018-09-12
- Court Decision / Holding
- Directs the 2nd respondent to fix the fee for the BDS Course-2017 of the 4th respondent College within four weeks from receipt of the judgment, and to require the college to submit all necessary documents within two weeks. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Milu P. Anil
- Arya Gopan
- Niba Amal
- Sudeep V.S.
- Ajin A.
- Rusmin Nihala V.
- Megha Shain
- Haritha Anil K.P.
- Rejla Kunnumpurath P.A.
- Rahima
- Silpa S.
- Alaka Das A.K.
- Sneha Muralidharan
- Ramshida K.P.
- Ronji M. Roy
Respondents
- State of Kerala rep by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare (S) Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala
- The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations
- Pariyaram Dental College, Pariyaram, Kannur
- The Principal Pariyaram Dental College, Pariyaram, Kannur
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Mahesh V Ramakrishnan
- • Chithra S. Babu
Counsels for Respondents
- • M.A. Asif
- • Mary Benjamin
- • Bindumol Joseph
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges the fixation of fees for the BDS course at Pariyaram Dental College, Kannur, for the 2017-18 academic year. The petitioners, a group of prospective dental students, contend that the college-aligned fee was fixed on the basis of agreements that have since been declared null and void, and that the Government’s fee fixation obligation thereafter lay with the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala. The petition seeks a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to determine the fee afresh in light of the court’s earlier direction in Kerala Self Financing Dental College Management Consortium v. State of Kerala (2017(4) KLT 809) and to grant opportunity for hearing to the petitioners. The respondents oppose the petition, arguing that once the agreements are found illegal, the fee must be fixed by the 2nd respondent, and that the college had fixed the fee based on those agreements (as evidenced by Ext.P9). The High Court, relying on the Kerala Self Financing decision, held that the illegality of the agreements necessitates fee fixation by the 2nd respondent. It directed the 2nd respondent to fix the fee within four weeks and required the college to submit relevant documents within two weeks, disposing of the petition accordingly.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the 4th respondent college’s BDS course fee for 2017 should be fixed afresh in light of the directive in Kerala Self Financing Dental College Management Consortium v. State of Kerala (2017(4) KLT 809). They seek a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to fix the fee after providing an opportunity of hearing, and to refrain from collecting any fee until fixation. They stress the need for transparency, adherence to judicial directions, and that the underlying agreements triggering the previously fixed fees are null and void.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that the agreements between the Government and the institution were declared null and void, hence the fee must be fixed by the 2nd respondent. The 4th respondent college had fixed its fee based on an agreement (Ext. P9); with the agreement illegal, the responsibility to fix the fee rests with the 2nd respondent, as per the judgment relied upon by the court.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala Self Financing Dental College Management Consortium Vs. State of Kerala | 2017(4) KLT 809 | Positive | The court relies on this decision’s direction to fix the fee; the current judgment applies the same principle that where the earlier agreements are void, fee fixation is to be done by the 2nd respondent. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Milu P. Anil and others v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.