[2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1397/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18212/2025 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Deputy Secretary Medical Education (Group-1) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. The State Level Fee Regulatory Committee, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur Through Its Chairman. 4. Chairman NEET PG Medical Admission/Counselling Board 2025, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellants/Respondents Versus NIMS University Rajasthan Jaipur, Shubha Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Registrar Dr. Sandeep Tripathi. ----Non-Appellant/Petitioner Connected With D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1399/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18144/2025 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Medical Education, Bhawan Having Its Office Near Pink Square Mall, Govind Marg, Jaipur. 3. Chairman NEET PG Medical Admission/Counselling Board- 2025, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. State Fee Regulatory Committee, For The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Member Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Appellants/Respondents Versus 1. Jaipur National University And Anr., Agra-Bypass, Near [2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] (2 of 10) [SAW-1397/2025] New RTO Office, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302017 Through Its Authorized Signatory, Dr. Ram Swaroop Parashar, S/o Shri Badri Prasad Parashar Aged About 70 Years, R/o 93/71, Agarwal Farms, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, (302020). 2. JNU Institute of Medical Sciences And Research Center, Jaipur Having Its Address At Agra Jaipur Road Near New RTO Office Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Principal, Manvir Singh Tevatia S/o Shri Rishipal Singh Aged About 63 Years, R/o C-44 AW HO Colony, Mawana Road, Rakshapuram, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh (250001). ----Non-Appellants/Petitioners D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1415/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18212/2025 NIMS University, Rajasthan Jaipur, Shubha Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Registrar Dr. Sandeep Tripathi ----Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Secretary Medical Education (Group-1) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The State Level Fee Regulatory Committee, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur Through Its Chairman. 4. Chairman, NEET PG Medical Admission / Counselling Board 2025, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1428/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18144/2025 1. Jaipur National University, Agra-Bypass, Near new RTO Office, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302017 Through Its [2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] (3 of 10) [SAW-1397/2025] Authorized Signatory, Dr. Ram Swaroop Parashar, S/o Shri Badri Prasad Parashar Aged About 70 Years, R/o 93/71, Agarwal Farms, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, (302020). 2. JNU Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Jaipur having its address at Agra Jaipur Road Near New RTO Office Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan through its Principal, Manvir Singh Tevatia S/o Shri Rishipal Singh Aged about 63 Years, R/o C-44 AW HO Colony, Mawana Road, Rakshapuram, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh (250001). ----Appellant/Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Medical Education Bhawan Having Its Office Near Pink Square Mall, Govind Marg, Jaipur. 3. Chairman NEET PG Medical Admission/Counselling Board- 2025, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. State Fee Regulatory Committee for the State of Rajasthan Through Its Member Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ---------Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, (Sr. Adv.), Advocate General with Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG & Mr. Yash Joshi, AAAG. Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. Sahajveer Baweja & Mr. Himanshu Agarwal in SAW No.1415/2025. Ms. Alankrita Sharma in SAW No.1428/2025. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit & [2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] (4 of 10) [SAW-1397/2025] Ms. Alankrita Sharma. Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. Sahajveer Baweja & Mr. Himanshu Agarwal in SAW No.1397/2025. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA JUDGMENT 19/12/2025 1. The defects as pointed out by the Registry in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1428/2025 are waived. 2. The present Special Appeals (Writ) are directed against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.12.2025 in bunch of writ petitions wherein the learned Single Judge passed the following order: “40. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners – Universities herein deserves to have similar treatment as have been given to other similarly situated universities. 41. Accordingly, the stay applications in both the matters stand allowed and disposed off in the terms that the respondents will not insist upon the petitioners – Universities to charge fee, as per the fee structure annexed with the instructions booklet and the petitioners would charge fees as per Section 33 of their respective University Act i.e. the NIMS University Rajasthan, Jaipur Act, 2008 and the Jaipur National University, Jaipur Act, 2008, respectively. 42. However, it is clarified that as the said directions are interim in nature and would remain subject to the final outcome of the controversy pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology Vs. Sachin Mehta & Ors. (S.L.P. No. [2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] (5 of 10) [SAW-1397/2025] 35001/2013), the fee received by the petitioners- universities over and above the fee determined by the State Fee Regulatory Committee would be separately deposited in a fixed deposit, which would reap interest and in case, the issue in question is decided against the petitioners-universities by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; or for any reason the petitioners – Universities are required to refund the fee charged to the student, the petitioners – Universities will be under obligation to refund the fee charged to the students along with the interest earned thereon. 43. Besides the above, it would be required of the petitioners to specifically indicate on the fee receipts of the students that the amount of the fees being recovered by the petitioners – Universities shall be subject to the final outcome of the above matters and full particulars of the pending matters would be duly mentioned on the fee receipts.” 3. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the issue before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the directions issued by the State Government in the advertisement booklet that the fees shall be charged by the private medical colleges as same as that being charged by the State Medical Colleges and all private Medical Colleges whether under any University, any private University or under the RUHS. The said aspect was challenged by the writ petitioners before the Court stating that they are the Universities established under the Act and under their own Establishment Act, there is a specific provision providing for laying down the fees for the various courses being provided by the Universities. For the purpose of MBBS Course, a Committee was formed under the Act to decide the fees and the same fees was being charged by the Universities for the Medical Colleges which were under them. [2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] (6 of 10) [SAW-1397/2025] 4. It was their submissions before the learned Single Judge that the State cannot impose the fees as laid down by the Fee Regulatory Committee established under the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of “Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697”. It was their submission that once the University has been empowered to lay down their own fee structure and the Committee akin to that as directed the Islamic Universities has already been established which has fixed the fees they would not be governed by the Fee Regulatory Committee as established by the State in terms of Islamic Academy of Education (supra). A citation of the interim order passed in the case of “Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology Vs. Sachin Mehta & Ors.” SLP No.35001/2013 by the Supreme Court was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge to reach to a conclusion that the petitioners before it would also be entitled to similar treatment as given by the Supreme Court to the Mahatma Gandhi University. 5. In the case of “Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology” (supra), the Division Bench of this Court finally held that the University cannot charge its own fees and lay down a separate fee structure other than what has been laid down by the Fee Regulatory Committee as established under the Islamic University. The said judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was challenged in Special Leave Petition 35001/2013 before the Supreme Court and by an interim order dated 16.02.2015, the Supreme Court allowed and permitted the University to fix the fee structure of three academic sessions [2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] (7 of 10) [SAW-1397/2025] namely 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 in terms of Section 33 of the Act governing the said Mahatma Gandhi University. Again on 23.07.2024, the Supreme Court extended the similar stay order for the academic sessions for the year 2024-2025, 2025- 2026 and 2026-2027 and permitted Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology to charge fees in terms of the fee as fixed under Section 33 of the Act. 6. The learned Single Judge has accordingly directed the concerned writ petitioners and permitted them to charge fees in accordance with the fee structure as laid down by their own Committees in terms of Section 28/33 of the respective Acts of the Universities. However, while passing the order it further directed that the said fees would be permitted to be received by the concerned colleges from the students till disposal of the SLP filed by “Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology” (supra) before the Supreme Court. 7. Learned Advocate General has objection to such directions and submits that since none of the respondents were petitioners before the Supreme Court, any direction passed by the Supreme Court would not be ipso facto applicable to those who are not parties to the said S.L.P. It is his further submitted that the learned Single Judge while granting the benefit of the said interim order could have extended only to the extent of the pendency of the writ petition and not to the extent of pendency of the said S.L.P. which would not in any manner be governed by the writ petition which is pending before the learned Single Judge. At best the interim order of permitting the fees to be charged in terms of the provisions of the Act which governs the concerned respondent- [2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] (8 of 10) [SAW-1397/2025] universities could be only subject to the final decision of the writ petition and not thereafter. 8. To the aforesaid extent, the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the concerned respective Universities have no objection. They too agree that any interim order can only be up to the final decision of the concerned writ petitions. 9. We agree to the aforesaid proposal in the Supreme Court as “Prem Chandra Agarwal and Anr. vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Ors.” (2009) 11 SCC 479 held as under: “3. It is a well-settled principle that once a final order is passed, all the earlier interim orders merge into the final order, and the interim orders cease to exist. In this appeal, since the final order has been passed by the High Court, obviously all the interim orders passed by the High Court in the same writ petition cease to exist automatically. Consequently, any direction given in the interim order dated 24-4-2008 also ceases to exist. In view of the final order passed by the High Court, the impugned interim order and any direction therein have ceased to exist. The appeal has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed.” 10. Therefore, any order passed by the Court can only be to the extent of the disposal of the said writ petition and would be subject to the disposal of the said writ petition and cannot be beyond the said period. The Supreme Court has also held that while disposing of the writ petition any interim order extended beyond the disposal cannot be passed. 11. At this stage, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents in the present appeals stated that they have also filed appeals which are tagged alongwith present appeal wherein they object to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge as [2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] (9 of 10) [SAW-1397/2025] noted above in Para 42 and submit that the directions passed by the learned Single Judge to deposit separately the excess fees over and above the fees as determined by the State Fee Regulatory Committee in a fix deposit, would be wholly contrary to the earlier part of the order. They also submit that depositing separately the excess fees to the fee determined by the State Fee Regularly Committee in fixed deposit would amount to depriving the universities of the right to receive the fees as determined by their own Committees in terms of the Act. 12. Learned counsels have also submitted that the Universities are ready to give an undertaking that if the order is passed and it is held that they are only entitled to receive fees as laid down by the State Fee Regularly Committee, the fees received over and above the said fee determined by the State Fee Regularly Committee shall be returned or adjusted in the future tuition fees of the concerned students. To the proposal as submitted by the learned counsels for the Universities, the learned Advocate General has no objection. 13. In these circumstances, we therefore direct that:- (i) The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition itself at the earliest considering the observations of the Supreme Court that matters relating to medical colleges should be decided as soon as possible. (ii) Considering the facts as noted above and the acceptance of the learned counsels, we direct that the concerned Universities shall charge fee as per the fee structures laid down by the Fee Regularly Committee in terms of the provisions of the Act [2025:RJ-JP:51664-DB] (10 of 10) [SAW-1397/2025] governing them. However, such fees which they would be permitted to receive from the students admitted in their respective Universities, would be subject to the final disposal of the writ petition and if it is finally decided that they are required to receive fees as determined by the State Fee Regularly Committee only, any fees received by them over and above the fee so determined shall be returned to the concerned students or adjusted in the future tuition fees of the concerned students for the subsequent years. Subject to them submitting such an undertaking, the condition laid down in Para 42 shall also not be applicable. 14. Accordingly, the present appeals filed by the State as well as by the concerned Universities are disposed of. We request the learned Single Judge to decide the case expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today. 15. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 16. Copy of this order be placed in the connected files. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ KAVISH /289-291 & 320