2026:HHC:35756 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11078 of 2011 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 22nd August, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.11078 of 2011 Robin Kumar and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.4105 of 2012 Vaishno College of Engineering …..Petitioner Versus The Secretary, University Grants Commission and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.480 of 2013 Private Technical Institutions Association Himachal Pradesh …..Petitioner Versus University Grants Commission and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.11078 of 2011. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35756 Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.4105 of 2012 and 480 of 2013. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State in all the matters. Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj, Mr. Ankit Chauhan and Ms. Avantika Bhandari, Advocates, for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP Nos.4105 of 2012 and 480 of 2013. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3 in CWP No.11078 of 2011 and for respondents No.6 & 7 in CWP Nos.4105 of 2012 and 480 of 2013. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge All these connected writ petitions involve similar questions of law and revolve around the same grievance. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been accordingly heard together for adjudication. Petitioners have questioned charging of development fund fee by the respondent-Himachal Pradesh Technical University from the students every year. 2. Heard and considered the case files. 2(i). Regulatory Framework governing fee fixation in technical education emanates from T.M.A. PAI Foundation and others Versus State of Karnataka and others2. Pursuant to this decision, All India Council for Technical 2 (2002) 8 SCC 481 3 2026:HHC:35756 Education (AICTE) issued Interim Policy Regulations vide notification dated 07.03.2003. These regulations issued under Section 23 read with Sections 10(b), 10(j) and 10(o) of the AICTE Act, 1987, permitted the institutions to generate reasonable surplus for development while strictly prohibiting profiteering. Interim Regulations mandated that fee structures be regulated through State mechanisms. 2(ii). Consequent to the provisions of the aforesaid Interim Policy Regulations, the State Government in supersession of all previous notifications, notified new fee structure for Private Engineering Colleges vide notification dated 04.07.2003. This included development fee to be charged as approved by the AICTE. Subsequently, the State Government constituted Fee Structure Committee for Private Engineering Colleges in Himachal Pradesh. The recommendations made by the Fee Structure Committee for fixing fees in respect of the Private Engineering Colleges were adopted by the State Government and were notified on 17.07.2007. 2(iii). Himachal Pradesh Private Technical and Vocational Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2008 (in short ‘Act of 2008) was enacted. Section 8(1) thereof provided for 4 2026:HHC:35756 charging of fee for growth and development of the institutions. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(3) of the Act, the State Government constituted Admission and Fee Committee. Further notifications regarding fee structure were issued from time to time. 2(iv). The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development vide office memorandum dated 28.10.2016, clarified that development fee can be charged by the institutions, subject to a ceiling of 15% of tuition fee for expansion and infrastructure development. 3. From the pleadings of the parties and submissions made by their learned counsel, it becomes evident that on one hand is the Institutional Development Fund and on the other is the Himachal Pradesh Technical University Development Fund. The Institutional Development Fund is charged by individual institutions. During hearing of the case, it has been the admitted position of both sides that Institution Development Fund is legally backed up by AICTE norms, more specifically, Section 8 of the Act of 2008. The Institutional Development Fund is intended for infrastructure, academic growth and institutional expansion. 5 2026:HHC:35756 The fee charged under the institutional development fund came under scanner in Business Institute of Management Studies Versus State of H.P. and others3. Following pertinent observations were made in the aforesaid decision:- “57. It is shocking that the private institutions have been raising their assets after illegally collecting funds like building fund, development fund, infrastructure fund etc. It is high time these practices are stopped forthwith and there is a crack down on all these institutions. Every education institution is accountable and no one, therefore, is above the law. It is not to suggest that the private education institutions are not entitled to their due share of autonomy as well as profit, but then it is out of this profit that the private education institutions, including schools are required to create their own assets and other infrastructure. They cannot under the garb of building fund etc. illegally generate funds for their “business expansion” and create “business empires”. 58. That apart, it is the responsibility of the institution imparting education to set up proper infrastructure for the students and, therefore, the fee charged towards building fund is both unfair as well as unethical. 59. Thus, there is an urgent need for Government intervention, correcting the systematic anomalies or else if commercialization persists and continues to grow unabated, then anything and everything will only be aimed at exploiting and manipulating for profit insofar as the higher education is concerned. It is, therefore, high time that the respondent-State acts responsibly by conducting a fresh investigation of all these institutions. 60. In these given circumstances, the Chief Secretary to Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to constitute a committee which shall carry out inspection of all the private education institutions at all levels i.e. schools, colleges, coaching centres, extension centres, (called by whatever name), universities etc. throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh and submit report 3 2016 (Suppl.) Him L.R. 3059 6 2026:HHC:35756 regarding compliance of the H.P. Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1997 within three months. Special emphasis and care shall be taken to indicate in the report as to whether the private institutions have the requisite infrastructure, parents teacher associations, qualified staff, whether these institutions are maintaining the accounts in terms of Rule 6 and are regularly submitting all the information in the forms prescribed under the Rules and are further charging the ‘fee’ as approved by the Govt. 61. The Committee shall further report regarding violations being carried out by the educational institutions with respect to the guidelines issued by the UGC from time to time as have otherwise been taken note of in this judgment and shall be free to report violation of any Act, Rule, statutory provisions, guidelines etc., irrespective of the fact that the same have been issued by the Central or the State Governments. 62. The Committee shall also keep in mind the provisions of the UGC Act, UGC (Establishment and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003, instructions issued by the UGC from time to time, more particularly, the public notices issued on 27.06.2013 and thereafter on 04.06.2015 quoted in extenso hereinabove. It shall specifically report as to whether any University/Deemed University/Institution is offering any programme through open and distance learning (ODL) in gross violation of the policy of the UGC and, at the same time also issuing misleading advertisements by stating that their programmes are recognized. 63. In the meanwhile, the respondent-State is directed to ensure that no private education institution is allowed to charge fee towards building fund, infrastructure fund, development fund etc.” The issue was examined by the competent authorities including the Fee Committees. AICTE vide its letter dated 16.05.2022, directed to implement the recommendations of the National Fee Committee to review the existing fee structure and to fix norms & guidelines for 7 2026:HHC:35756 charging tuition and other fee. The matter related to implementation of recommendations of National Fee Committee and the judgment rendered in Business Institute of Management Studies2 was placed before the Admission and Fee Committee constituted vide government notification dated 18.03.2015. The Admission and Fee Committee made its recommendations. In Clause 9.2.2 thereof, the Committee recommended that institutions can charge development fee to provide for further expansion of development of institute upto 15% of the tuition fee for academic purpose. It is on the recommendations of the Admission and Fee Committee that the State Government vide its notification issued on 11.10.2022, fixed/revised the fee and funds including development fee in respect of the private institutions of the State. 4. As noticed earlier, there is no grievance in these writ petitions with respect to charging of development fund by the private institutions. The grievance in these writ petitions is regarding development fund charged by the respondent-Himachal Pradesh Technical University. This fund is separate and distinct from the development fund charged by the institutions. Replies stand filed by the respondents. During hearing of the writ petitions, the 8 2026:HHC:35756 respondents, more specifically the respondent-H.P. Technical University, was directed to demonstrate the source of power, under which it charges Technical University Development Fund. In response thereto, instructions in form of brief note were placed on record. According to the respondent-H.P. Technical University, it has been duly empowered by the Himachal Pradesh Technical University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010 (in short ‘Act of 2010’) to prescribe fees or other charges for examinations & other purposes and also to demand & receive such fees and charges; University possesses similar powers under Section 5(u) of the Himachal Pradesh Technical University Act, 2014. Sections 5(u) and 5(zk) of the Act of 2010 read as under:- “5. The University shall have the following powers and functions, namely:- (u) to demand and receive payments of such fees and other charges as may be specified from time to time; (zk) to prescribe fees or other charges for examination and other purposes and to demand and receive the fees or other charges so prescribed.” Section 5(u) of the Act of 2014 is as under:- “5. Power of the University.- Subject to the provisions of this Act and such conditions as may be prescribed by the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations, the University shall exercise the following powers and discharge the functions namely:- 9 2026:HHC:35756 (u) to prescribe fees and other charges for admission to various courses, examinations and other services rendered by the University and to demand and receive the same so prescribed.” According to the respondent-H.P. Technical University, the above provisions authorize the University to prescribe not only fees, but also other charges for admissions, examinations & other services rendered by the University and to demand & receive the same. The reading of above provisions, thus, gives the impression that the respondent-Technical University is authorized to prescribe not only fees, but other charges for examination as also for other purposes and to demand & receive the fees or other charges so prescribed. It is the case of the respondent-H.P. Technical University that in consonance with the above provision, University Development Fund is being charged by it at present at the rate of Rs.3000/- per student per year. The respondent-Technical University has amplified the source of power under which it is charging the Technical University Development Fund. There is no challenge in these petitions to the provisions of the applicable Acts. This being the position, the relief seeking directions to the respondents, more particularly the respondent-H.P. 10 2026:HHC:35756 Technical University, for not charging the Technical Development Fund cannot be granted to the petitioners. 5. In view of above, I find no merit in the instant writ petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 22, 2026 Judge Mukesh