- Home
- News
- Blog
- state news
- Andaman And Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra And Nagar Haveli
- Daman And Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
Pvt medical colleges move Court against fee regulatory committee fixing Fees
Kerala's private medical college managements moved the high court today against the fee regulatory committee fixing fees to be charged by institutions from students who were admitted in the 2017-18 academic year.
Challenging the November 23, 2017 order of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, they argued that the committee was not expected or required to function as a "super auditor" and fix their own fee, in total disregard of the law.
They submitted that the committee's power was to regulate the fee by considering the one fixed by the institution, looking at the profiteering and exploitative part, if any, and matters which were taken into account by the institution while fixing it.
In a batch of petitions filed in the high court, the managements argued that the committee's order took away the basic right of the institutions to decide on the fee.
They submitted that a perusal of the order would show that the committee had "failed" to perform its duty in the manner as expected from it.
They further submitted that the committee was seen to have passed the order for the "satisfaction of the gallery", ignoring the cost factors in running the institutions, without the element of profiteering and exploitation.
Challenging the November 23, 2017 order of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, they argued that the committee was not expected or required to function as a "super auditor" and fix their own fee, in total disregard of the law.
They submitted that the committee's power was to regulate the fee by considering the one fixed by the institution, looking at the profiteering and exploitative part, if any, and matters which were taken into account by the institution while fixing it.
In a batch of petitions filed in the high court, the managements argued that the committee's order took away the basic right of the institutions to decide on the fee.
They submitted that a perusal of the order would show that the committee had "failed" to perform its duty in the manner as expected from it.
They further submitted that the committee was seen to have passed the order for the "satisfaction of the gallery", ignoring the cost factors in running the institutions, without the element of profiteering and exploitation.
Meghna A Singhania is the founder and Editor-in-Chief at Medical Dialogues. An Economics graduate from Delhi University and a post graduate from London School of Economics and Political Science, her key research interest lies in health economics, and policy making in health and medical sector in the country. She can be contacted at editorial@medicaldialogues.in. Contact no. 011-43720751
Next Story
NO DATA FOUND
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd