THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3404 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief : “…declaring the action of the 1st respondent in notifying the tuition fee to a tune of Rs.40,000/- to the off- campus of the petitioner institution for B.Tech. program for the academic year 2024-25 vide G.O.Ms.No.21, Higher Education (RM) Department, dated 16.07.2024 as per the recommendations of the 2nd respondent, discriminating the petitioner institution as main campus and off-campus and further without following Rules prescribed under the Act 20 of 2019, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory & Monitoring Commission Act 2019 and Rules framed thereunder and consequently set aside the impugned G.O. to the extent of the petitioner institution and …” 2. Case of the petitioner is as follows. (i) The petitioner institution was established in the year 2008 after duly obtaining approval from the Apex Body i.e. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and 2 got renewal from time to time. For the Academic Year 2024- 25, the Apex Body granted approval to petitioner institution and the affiliating University i.e. JNTU, Anantapur, granted affiliation for the Academic Year 2024-25, and it is running various courses in main campus in Lakshmipuram post. For the Academic Year 2024-25, the petitioner institution was granted permission to run off-campus as an additional Section at Chinnatekur village, Kallur mandal and the Apex Body and the affiliating University granted approval and affiliation therefor. (ii) 2nd respondent recommended tuition fee for the main campus of petitioner institution at Rs.50,000/- and the same was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.17, Higher Education (R.M.) Department, dated 07.07.2024, whereas 2nd respondent recommended tuition fee for off-campus of the petitioner at Rs.40,000/-, which is notified vide G.O.Ms.No.21, Higher Education (R.M.) Department, dated 16.07.2024. (iii) It is stated that 2nd respondent discriminated the petitioner institution as two different entities treating the 3 off-campus as newly established institution and recommended Rs.40,000/- as tuition fee, but off-campus can never be treated as a new entity since off-campus simply refers to activities or opportunities happening outside the boundaries of the main campus. It is further stated that the Apex Body granted permission to run the off-campus within the boundaries and administration run under the main campus, and mentioned the year of establishment of the off-campus as 2008, but ignoring the said fact, 2nd respondent treated the off-campus as new entity. It is further stated that 2nd respondent failed to comply with the provisions of Rules framed under the Act 20 of 2019 (A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Act, 2019) and failed to provide worksheets before calling for personal hearing, as mandated under Rule 8 of the Rules, 2019, and personal hearing was conducted without providing any worksheet or information in regard to consideration or non-consideration of the data provided by the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the material averments in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia as under. (i) It is settled law that Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the economic recommendations which are made by a Statutory Committee consisting of domain experts, and approved by the Government. The action of 2nd respondent recommending Rs.40,000/- as tuition fee for off-campus of the petitioner is based on the recommendations of the Chartered Accountants and is justified. The Apex Body has not permitted the petitioner to run the off-campus within the boundaries of the main campus, and the year of establishment of the off-campus is not recognized as 2008. Even according to the petitioner, the off-campus was permitted to run from the Academic Year 2024-25. (ii) As per the Guidelines for Grant of Approval for Off- Campus issued by AICTE, off-campuses are segregated into three categories, based on the distance between the main campus and the off-campus viz. for Category-I, the distance 5 is more than 2 KMs and less than 5 KMs; for Category-II, the distance is more than 5 KMs and less than 75 KMs, and for Category-III, the distance is more than 75 KMs. Only in case of off-campus Category-I, the main campus and the off-campus are to be treated as a single entity, and in other cases, the same are not treated as single entity and they are to be treated as separate entities. (iii) It is stated that no documents have been filed by the petitioner to show the distance between the main campus and the off-campus and 2nd respondent verified the distance by using the modus operandi specified in the Guidelines viz. through use of Google maps, wherein it is discerned that the distance between the main campus and the off-campus of the petitioner institution is more than 5 KMs, and therefore, it falls under Category-II off-campus, and hence, the main campus and the off-campus cannot be considered to be a single entity. (iv) It is further stated that as per the Guidelines for Grant of Approval for Off-Campus, requirements for an off- campus Category-II are that (a) the Campus Head is to be 6 assigned and (b) Basic separate administrative/governance set up is required. Since the off-campus is newly established, the petitioner would not have requisite data with regard to infrastructure, equipment and staff employed therein, and the same would only be available for the next block period, 2nd respondent cannot recommend approximate fee at this point of time and hence, minimum fee of Rs.40,000/- insofar as the courses offered in the off- campus has been recommended. Similar is the approach of 2nd respondent in respect of other newly established off- campuses. Subsequently, based on the Order passed by this Court in W.A.No.197 of 2024 and batch, the minimum fee of Rs.40,000/- was enhanced to Rs.43,000/- by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 18.7.2024, in respect of petitioner college. The off-campus of the petitioner is a new entity and work sheets would not be prepared for the same since the requisite data would not be available. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7 4. The writ petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent, stating inter alia that the distance between the main campus and the off-campus is 4.9 KMs as per the Google maps; that the arrangement of enhancement of fee to Rs.43,000/- by the Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 3.7.2024 in W.A.No.197 of 2024 and batch, was made as an interim measure till the outcome of the Writ Appeals pending at that particular point of time; that there is no question of lack of data because both the main campus and the off-campus are being run together by sharing the staff and other facilities; that the data which is submitted towards the main campus should be considered by 2nd respondent for determination of tuition fee to the off-campus, and though the petitioner made representations requesting to determine the fee on par with the main campus, none of them was considered. Hence, it is prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for 1st respondent and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel 8 appearing for Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner institution obtained approval from the Apex Body AICTE, and affiliation from the affiliating University i.e. JNTU, Anantapur, for the Academic Year 2024-25, to run courses. It is also not in dispute that the main campus of the petitioner institution is situated in Lakshmipuram post, Kallur mandal. It is also not in dispute that for the Academic Year 2024-25, the petitioner institution was granted permission to run off-campus as an additional Section and the Apex Body and the affiliating University granted approval and affiliation therefor, and the same is situated at Chinnatekur village, Kallur mandal. It is also not in dispute that tuition fee for the courses offered in main campus of petitioner has been fixed at Rs.50,000/- by 2nd respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.17, Higher Education (R.M.) Department, dated 07.07.2024. However, 2nd respondent recommended tuition fee for the off-campus of the 9 petitioner at Rs.40,000/-, and notified the same vide G.O.Ms.No.21, Higher Education (R.M.) Department, dated 16.07.2024. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Apex Body granted permission to run the off-campus within the boundaries of main campus and that there is discrimination in treating the main campus and the off-campus as two different entities by treating the off- campus as a newly established institution. According to 2nd respondent, the Apex Body has not permitted the petitioner to run the off-campus within the boundaries of the main campus. According to the learned senior counsel, the subject off-campus at Chinnatekur village, Kallur mandal would fall under Category-II of the three off- campuses categories segregated under the the Guidelines for Grant of Approval for Off-Campus issued by AICTE, as the distance between the main campus and the off-campus is more than 5 KMs and less than 75 KMs. According to him, only in case of off-campus falling under Category-I, the main campus and the off-campus are to be treated as a 10 single entity, and in other cases, the same are not treated as single entity and they are to be treated as separate entities. According to 2nd respondent, it got verified the distance between the main campus and the off-campus by using the modus operandi specified in the Guidelines viz. through use of Google maps, and it is discerned that the distance between the main campus and the off-campus of the petitioner institution is more than 5 KMs, and therefore, it falls under Category-II off-campus, and hence, the main campus and the off-campus cannot be considered to be a single entity. 8. From a perusal of the copy of Guidelines for Grant of Approval for Off-campus filed by 2nd respondent, it is clear that an entity established by a Trust/Society/Section 8 Company with the same name and style of an already established institution by the same Trust/Society/Section 8 Company within a distance of 2 to 5 KMs, offering same or different Programs/Courses/Levels under Technical Education, can be termed as an Off Campus:Category-I. It is further clear from the said Guidelines that if such an 11 entity is established in a distance of 5 to 75 KMs from the already existing institution, then it could be termed as an Off Campus:Category-2, and if established beyond 75 KMs, then, it could be termed as Off Campus:Category-3. According to the said Guidelines, the distance should be „road distance‟ as per application of Google Maps or Apple Maps or MapmyIndia. From the aforesaid Guidelines, it is clear that if the distance between the main campus and the off-campus is more than 2 KMs and less than 5 KMs, then the off-campus falls under Category-I, and if the distance is more than 5 KM and less than 75 KM, then the off-campus falls under Category-II. 9. To substantiate its contention with regard to the distance between the main campus and the off-campus, 2nd respondent adopted the modus operandi specified in the Guidelines viz. through use of Google maps, and found that the distance is more than 5 KMs. A copy of the photograph of the Google maps is filed as material paper along with the counter affidavit of 2nd respondent. 12 10. Further, this Court, pursuant to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, vide Order dated 18.9.2025, permitted the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2 on the aspect of distance between the main campus and the off-campus, and thereupon, directed 2nd respondent to submit a report in connection with the same. Pursuant to the same, the Member Secretary & CEO, A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission (APHEMC) submitted a report dated 29.10.2025. In the said report, it is categorically stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted its representation to 2nd respondent, and from Paragraph No.4.a of the Report, it is clear that the APHEMC re-verified the geographical co-ordinates furnished by the institution using Google Maps and it was conclusively established that the road distance between the main campus and the off- campus exceeds 5 KMs, and that the off-campus of Ashoka Women‟s Engineering College is located beyond 5 KMs from the main campus, and the off-campus falls under Category- 13 II (road distance is more than 5 KMs and less than 75 KMs). Accordingly, it was treated as a separate unit for regulatory and fee determination purposes, and hence, petitioner‟s request for fee parity with the main campus cannot be accepted, as, such parity is permissible only for the off-campuses falling under Category-I. Considering these aspects, the fee was rightly recommended for the off- campus of petitioner institution. The petitioner was given a fair opportunity of making representation before the statutory body. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this Court is not expected to interdict the report of the statutory body and cannot interfere with the questions of fact in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. 14 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J 24.11.2025 DRK 15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3404 OF 2025 24.11.2025 DRK