Site icon Legal Vidhiya

Sahil Bhargava & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love
CITATION2024 INSC 699
DATE OF JUDGMENTSeptember 09, 2024
COURTSupreme Court of India
APPELLANTSahil Bhargava & Ors.
RESPONDENTState of Uttarakhand
BENCHCJI Dr D.Y Chandrachud, Justice J.B.Pardiwala & Justice Manoj Misra

INTRODUCTION 

The case of Sahil Bhargava vs. State of Uttarakhand involve the dispute related to the fixation of the fees for the undergraduate medical degree course offered by the college in the state of Uttarakhand. The petition initially filed as a special leave petition. The petitioners are student who were granted in the year 2018 to the medical degree course. The students completed the course in the year 2023. At the time of admission, fee was Rs 5lakhs p.a. for the All India quota seats and Rs 4lakhs p.a. for the State quota seats. But in 2019, the fees revised for the academic years 2019- 2022 at Rs 13.22lakhs p.a. for the All India quota and Rs 9.78lakhs p.a. for the State quota which was also charged for the academic year 2018-19. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. The petitioners are students who were granted admission in 2018 to the undergraduate medical degree course. The students completed the course in 2023.
  2. The original fee when the students took admission was Rs. 5lakhs per annum for the all India quota seats Rs. 4lakhs per annum, foe the state quota seats. 
  3. The fees regulatory committee fixed the fees for the batch 2019 – 2022 at Rs 13.22lakhs per annum for the all India quota and Rs 9.78lakhs per annum for the state quota. 
  4. The petitioner instituted writ petitions the high Court challenging the order of the appellate authority. 
  5.  The High court rejected the request to stay the order of the appellate authority and directed the petitioners to deposit the fees in three equal installments.  
  6. The petitioners instituted Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the order of the appellate authority

ISSUES RAISED

1. The issue arise as regards the fixation of the fee for the undergraduate medical degree course offered by college ?

2. What are the grounds on which High court dismiss the petition ?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

  1. The fixation of the fee for the undergraduate medical degree course offered by a college in the State of Uttarakhand for the batch 2018 – 2023 was invalid.
  2. The Act establishes an ‘Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee’, which inter alia determines the fees for admission to professional courses of private institutions was not valid.
  3. Writ petitions by the students seeking direction to the respondents to issue undergraduate degrees to them without insistence on any extra payment of tuition fee.
  4. Instant the dispose the petition, High Court admitted the petition and posted in March 2025 and no early resolution provided.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

  1. 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.

JUDGEMENT

  1. The court recommends an equitable interim order to allow students to return their original documents for postgraduate studies and medicine practice. The court’s order, issued in April 2023, aimed to deposit two installments of fees and request the High Court to dispose of the petition. 
  1. However, the High Court admitted the petition and postponed its resolution, leaving the students uncertain. The court orders petitioners to deposit Rs.7.50 lakhs each with the second and third respondents, allowing them to return their original documents, but requiring them to submit an undertaking to pay the remaining amount at the final disposal of pending writ petitions.
  1. The High Court’s interim order has been modified, but it does not provide an opinion on the merits of the pending writ petitions.

ANALYSIS

Order of this Court sought to remove 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 – Students cannot be left in the lurch to an uncertain future – Students have paid approximately Rs 34 lakhs per student for the All-India quota seats and Rs 28 lakhs per student for the State quota seats, inclusive of the security deposit and remaining installments – In view thereof, students to be returned their original documents, to pursue their postgraduate studies and practice medicine, on the deposit of Rs 7.50 lakhs each over and above the amounts already deposited – Students to file an undertaking to pay the balance amount on the final disposal of the pending writ petitions – Interim order of the High Court modified in the said terms

CONCLUSION

This case involves dispute related to the fixation of fees for the undergraduate degree course offered by the colleges in the State of Uttarakhand. The students filed writ petition in the High Court and court not provided the revelant jurisdiction. The plaintiff move to the Supreme court. Supreme court held that, the students to be returned their original documents to pursue their further studies.

REFERENCES

  1. https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sahil-bhargava-versus-state-of-uttarakhand
  2. Advocate khoj

This Article is written by Akanksha Mishra student of CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version