Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 – s.15 r/w. ss.3 and 7 – Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 – rr. 3 and 4(v) – The Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) u/r. 4 (v) communicated the fee structure determined by it to the State Government for Notification – The fee structure was notified, inter-alia for the B.E. and B. Tech Courses, for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19 – The said fee structure was challenged by the respondent institutions before the High Court – Single Judge of the High Court remanded the matter to the TAFRC for reconsideration – Pursuant thereto, the Committee granted some escalations, however, the same was challenged again – Thereafter, the High Court redetermined the fee structure for the block period itself – Aggrieved, the State and the fee Regulatory Committee assailed the same unsuccessfully before the Division Bench of the High Court – On appeal, held: Judicial review lies against the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself – If the decision-making process is flawed, inter-alia by violation of the basic principles of natural justice, is ultra-vires the powers of the decision maker, takes into consideration irrelevant materials or excludes relevant materials, admit materials behind the back of the person to be affected or is such that no reasonable persons would have taken such decision in the circumstances, the Court may step in to correct the error by setting aside such decision and requiring the decision maker to take a fresh decision in accordance with the law – However, the Court, in the garb of judicial review, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the decision maker and make the decision itself – It cannot act as an appellate authority of the TAFRC – Further, TAFRC is a statutory body headed by a retired High Court Judge, consists of domain experts from various fields including two from the finance sector, one of which is from the Government – The Court should avoid to interfere with the recommendations of an expert body, which is accepted by the Government, unless it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or violates any provisions of the law under which it was constituted – In the instant case, as demonstrated from the available records none of the grounds set out by the High Court can be considered as making out an exceptional case to warrant usurpation of the decision making jurisdiction of the TAFRC by the High Court – Thus, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with recommendation of the TAFRC – The orders of the High Court set aside – Judicial Review. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The crux of the controversy is the jurisdiction and the extent to which the court can examine the determination of the fee structure by the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) and approved by the State government, in exercise of the powers of judicial review. The TAFRC, a statutory body headed by a retired High Court Judge, consists of domain experts from various fields including two from the finance sector, one of which is from the Government. Rule 3(vii) of Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 vests the TAFRC with the power to frame its own procedure in accordance with regulations notified by the Government in that regard and pursuant to which the guidelines for fee fixation have been framed by it. The recommendations of the TAFRC being the resultant of a quasijudicial decision-making process, it will undoubtedly be amenable to the jurisdiction of the court for scrutiny by judicial review, so as to ensure adherence to the constitutional principles of reasonableness, fairness and adherence to the law under Article
14 of the Constitution. [Para 16] [947-B-D]
2. Judicial review, as is well known, lies against the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. If the decision-making process is flawed inter alia by violation of the basic principles of natural justice, is ultra-vires the powers of the decision maker, takes into consideration irrelevant materials or excludes relevant materials, admits materials behind the back of the person to be affected or is such that no reasonable person would have taken such a decision in the circumstances, the court may step in to correct the error by setting aside such decision and requiring the decision maker to take a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The court, in the garb of judicial review, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the decision maker and make the decision itself. Neither can it act as an appellate authority of the TAFRC. [Para 17] [947-E-G]
3. It needs no emphasis that complex executive decisions in economic matters are necessarily empiric and based on experimentation. Its validity cannot be tested on any rigid principles or the application of any straitjacket formula. The court while adjudging the validity of an executive decision in economic matters must grant a certain measure of freedom or play in the joints to the executive. Not mere errors, but only palpably arbitrary decisions alone can be interfered with in judicial review. The recommendation made by a statutory body consisting of domain experts not being to the satisfaction of the State Government is an entirely different matter with which this Court is not concerned in the present discussion. The court should therefore be loath to interfere with such recommendation of an expert body, and accepted by the government, unless it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or violates any provisions of the law under which it is constituted. The court cannot sit as an appellate authority, entering the arena of disputed facts and figures to opine with regard to manner in which the TAFRC ought to have proceeded without any finding of any violation of rules or procedure. If a statutory body has not exercised jurisdiction properly the only option is to remand the matter for fresh consideration and not to usurp the powers of the authority. [Para 19] [948-E-H; 949-A-B]
4. In the context of Indian jurisprudence, the Constitution is the supreme law. All executive or legislative actions have to be tested on the anvil of the same. Such actions will have to draw their sustenance as also their boundaries under the same. Any action falling foul of the constitutional guarantees will call for corrective action in judicial review to ensure adherence to the constitutional ethos. But so long as the fabric of the constitutional ethos is not set asunder, the court will have to exercise restraint, more particularly in matters concerning domain experts, else the risk of justice being based on individual perceptions which may render myths as realities inconsistent with the constitutional ethos. Courts often adjudicate disputes that raise the question of how strictly should they scrutinise executive or legislative action. Therefore, courts have identified certain questions as being inappropriate for judicial resolution or have refused on competency grounds to substitute their judgement for that of another person on a particular matter. The need for judicial restraint with regard to recommendations of expert committees, more particularly in matters relating to finance and economics, was considered in various Supreme Court Judgments. [Para 20] [949-E-G]
5. Therefore, of the considered opinion in the facts of the present case, as demonstrated from the available records that none of the four grounds set out by the High Court can be considered as making out an exceptional case to warrant usurpation of the decision making jurisdiction of the TAFRC by the High Court. [Para 25] [953-A-B]
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568 : [1981] 2 SCR
52 ; State of (NCT) of Delhi v. Sanjeev, (2005) 5 SCC
181 : [2005] 3 SCR 151 ; Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992)
2 SCC 343 : [1992] 1 SCR 406 ; BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 511 ; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720 : [2008] 3 SCR 330 ; Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. v. CSEPDI-Trishe Consortium, (2017)
4 SCC 318 : [2016] 7 SCR 495 – relied on.
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another v. K.S. Jagannathan and another (1986) 2 SCC 679 : [1986] 2 SCR 17 ; Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors. (2000)
8 SCC 395 – distinguished.
Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 474 ; T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002]
3 Suppl. SCR 587 ; Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 668 ; D.N. Jeevaraj v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnatka, (2016) 2 SCC 653 : [2015] 12 SCR 115 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.