WP/17932/2026 of M/s Aristotle Education Society Vs The State of Telangana on 18 June 2026

:ORDER:

-fhrs Wrn Petition is filed seeking the following relief .. lo /.ssl/e a Wnt orcler or direction one morL, parlicularly in the nature of a Wrrt of Mandamus it Declaitry the C.O.Ms.No.6 dated 04.03.2026 rssuerJ by the Respondent No 1 tn fixrng and notrfying the fee as determined/f txed for the block period of 2025-2028 rn respect of lhe B.Tech course tmpafted by the Petitrcner institutian wherein the Petitioner lnstitutions fee has been ttnilaterally ftxed at Rs.1.02.900/- as being illegal arbitrary. unconstiluttonal and against the gudelines laid dawn by the Hon'ble Supremet Couft tn TIVIA Par Foundation v State of Karnataka reporle(l at (2002) I SCC 481 , and being vliated by the perverctty. and furTher declaring their action in nol ftxing ancl nottrying the fees of Rs.1 44,291/- as; actually determtned by the Respondents for the' Petittoner lnstiution as per the calculatrons giver under RTI (Annexure P-17) along with mathematica; correctnn for lh,) upconing block period of Academic Year ot 2025-2026 to 2027-2028 in respect of the B. fech coulses as being rn comptete violation of the sel//eo /arr declared by lhe Honourablc Supreme Court of tndta ano b] this Hon ble Couft and the lusuce luwad' 5ndev' wp 17932_2026 Telangana Educational lnstitution Regulation of Admission and prohibition of capitation Fee Ac[ 1983 and the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Courses offered in Private unaided Professional lnstitulions Rules,2006 and set aside such action and pass..."

2. Heard Sri Avinash Desar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Mahit Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. Sujatha Kurapati, Iearned Government Pleader for Higher Education; and Sri G. Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record

3. Facts of the case:

3.1. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1-college is a non-profit organization founded in the year 2000 and petitioner No.2-college was established in the year 2008 and was granted approval by AICTE and requisite affiliation by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. Respondent No.2 was constituted pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was granted statutory recognition in the State by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.6, Higher Education (EC-2) Department, dated 08.01.2007, namely, the A.P. Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un-aided Professional lnstitutions) Rules, 2006. After the bifurcation of the State, the said G.O.Ms.No.6 was lus',ce luvvad' 5r dev wp 11912 ZA26 adopted by the State of Telangana through G,O.Ms.No.26, dated 22.07 .2015, and the Committee was constituted 3.2 lt is stated that the Rules framed under Act 5 of 19g3 prescribe the procedure for fixation of fee and Rule 4 provides that the Fee Regulatory Committee shall call for the proposed fee structure from each institution and consider the same on the basis of various relevant factors in accordance with law, and the fee so notified shall remain valid for a period of three years. 3 3 lt is further stated that the petitioner-institutron stricily complied with the fee fixed by respondent No.2 for the block period 2022-2023 lo 2024-2025 While so, respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 1507.2024 calling upon instituilons to submit proposals for review and determination of fee structure for various courses is falling withrn its jurisdiction for the block period 202S_ 2026 lo 2027 -2028 Pursuant thereto, the petitioner_institution submitted its proposal seeking revision of tuition fee to Rs.1 ,45,000/_ for the said block period and furnished all relevant documents before respondent No.2 on 09.12.2024 3.4 lt is stated that respondent No 2, upon receipt of the relevant documents, schedured a personar hearing and heard the petitioner on 04.03 2025 regarding the proposed increase in fee. Durrng the - lustr.e luwad Sndevi wo t1912 7076 said hearing, respondent No 2 allegedly informed the petitioner that a tuition fee of Rs.1,35,000/- would be just and appropriate for the block period 2025-2026 to 2027-2028. Upon further discussion and deliberation, the petitioner accepted the said fee and respondent No.2 notified and recorded the same in its register. lt is stated that the petitioner signed the register maintained by respondent No.2 in the presence of all the Committee members accepting Rs.1,35,000/- as the fee to be levied for the aforesaid block period.

3.5. According to the petitioners, without notifying the fee as accepted and recorded In the register, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 30.06.2025 unilaterally fixing and notifying the fee determined for the previous block period 2022-2023 to 2024- 2025 lo continue for the academic year 2025-2026 in respect of the B.Tech course offered by the petitioner-institution. 3.6 lt is further stated that two similarly situated institutions filed W.P. No. 19571 of 2025, wherein this Hon'ble Court, by order dated 09.07.2025, permitted the petitioner institutions therein to collect the fee recorded in the register, while all other institutions were compelled to collect the tuition fee applicable to the previous block period for the academic year 2025-2026..

l!5t :e luvvadr 5.dev wp li912_2026

3.7. The petitioners further state that the institution was again called for a personal hearing on 01.09.2025. During the said hearing. the petitioner was allegedly coerced into signing the register in which the proposed fee column was left blank, on the assurance that the fee earlier agreed upon on 04.03.2025, namely Rs.1,35,000/-. would subsequently be inserted in the blank space.

3.8. lt is stated that, contrary to such assurance, respondent No.1 issued the impugned G.o t\Is.No.6 ot 2026 dated 04.03 2026 unilaterally fixing the tuition fee at Rs 1 ,02,9001-, thereby reducing the fee payable to the petitioner-institution to an amount lesser than what was agreed upon during the earlier hearing, without assigning any justification or reasons, and in a manner contrary to law 3 9 The petitio n ers-in stitutio n state that thereafter an application under the Right to lnformation Act was submitted seeking information regarding the basis on which the tuition fee for the B.Tech course was fixed for the block period 2025-2028 in the impugned Government Order. Respondent No.2 furnished a reply on 31.03 2026. Upon receipt of the said information, the petitioner claims to have noticed certarn errors in the calculations adopted by the respondents for fixation of fee

- lustic€luwadiSridevr wp_11932_2026

3.10. lt is further stated that the petitioner submitted a representation daled 22.04.2026 to respondent No.2 seeking review and revision of the fee structure fixed for the brock period 2025-2026 lo 2027-2028. However, the said representation has not been considered till date. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.04.2026 to respondent No.2 seeking review and revision of the fee structure fixed for the block period 2025-2026 to 2027-2028. However, the said representation has not been considered till date. Therefore, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation, dated 22.04.2026 submitted by the petitioners-l nstitutions.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the respondents-authorities will consider the representation, dated 22.04.2026 submitted by the petitioners-institution and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.

6. In view of the said submission, and without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 2 to consider the representation dated ZZ.O4.2026

lLst ce lLlvad Sr devr wp 11912 2A26 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Tlll such consideration, the petitioner_ institution shall be permitted to collect the fee fixed under G.O.Ms.No. 6, Higher Education (TE) Department, dated 04 03 2026. i.e Rs.1,02.900/- per student, subject to enhancement of fee, if any, upon consideration of the said representation. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed AS Sd/-L.VIJAYA LAXMI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, N) SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad.

2. The Member Secretary,Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee' 2nd Floor. JNA and FAU Campus, Opp Mahavir Hospital, Mahaveer Marg' Masab Tank, HYderabad

3. The convenor, TGEAPCET 2025, JNTUH UCESTH, Kukatpally Hyderabad 500085

4. The Secretary, Telangana State Council for Higher Education' '1st Floor' JNTU Masab iank Campus, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Mahaveer Marg' Masab Tank, Hyderabad

5. TheRegistrar,JawaharlalNehruTechnologicalUniversity,Hyderabad

6. One CC to SRI K MAHIT REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

7. One CC to SC FOR TSCHE [OPUC]

8. One CC to SRI PERI PRABHAKAR, SC FOR JNTUH [OPUC]

9. One CC to SRI G.CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY' SC FOR TA&FRCIOPUCI 1O.Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 1 . Two CD Copies PMK

HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 1810612026

ORDER

WP.No.17932 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\l e S TATE o q)o !) 19 JuN ?i)?s +. b $ 1L