1 2026:CGHC:24632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2265 of 2022 1 - Mahaveer College Of Ayurvedic Sciences Through The Chairman N.C. Parakh Village Sundra, G.E. Road , Rajnandgaon , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principle Secretary Health , Family Welfare And Medical Education Department, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Additional Principle Secretary Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education Department, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Admission And Fee Regulatory Committee Through Its Chairman Government Cum Education Polytechnic Premises Byron Bazar Raipur. 4 - The Director Ayurved Yoga Avam Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani, Siddha And Homeopathic (Ayush) Chhattisgarh Old Nurses Hostel, D.K.S. Bhawan Premises Raipur . ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate appears along with Mr. Akash Pandey, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Advocate For State : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18.06.2026 1. By way of this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the inaction on the part of respondent No. 3, Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, in not determining/finalizing the fee structure of the petitioner institution in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2008”), despite repeated representations and statutory requirements. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondents to determine the fee strictly in accordance with Section 9 of the Act of 2008 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is an unaided minority educational institution running an Ayurvedic College under the name Mahaveer College of Ayurvedic Sciences, duly registered and affiliated, engaged in imparting medical education. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, while issuing orders dated 17.05.2019 and 3 consequential communication dated 23.08.2019 (Annexures P-1 & P-2), fixed a uniform fee structure for several courses including BAMS, without undertaking an institution-wise determination as mandated under Section 9 of the Act of 2008 and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy of Education. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that despite submission of requisite financial data and representations, the respondents failed to independently assess the petitioner institution’s fee structure considering relevant statutory factors such as infrastructure, expenditure, investment, and reasonable surplus. The petitioner asserts that repeated representations have remained undecided, resulting in violation of statutory mandate and constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 4. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the inaction and omissions on the part of respondents is per se illegal and bad. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to allow the application / representation of the petitioner for fixation of its own fee structure within a stipulated period. 4 10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to fix its own fee structure in terms of Article 19(1)(g) and the judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the reasonable plus theory. 10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned fee fixation is contrary to Section 9 of the Act of 2008, which mandates consideration of institution-specific factors including infrastructure, investment, operational cost, and reasonable surplus. It is submitted that the Fee Regulatory Committee has failed to discharge its statutory obligation by adopting a uniform enhancement formula instead of individualised determination. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being an unaided minority institution, enjoys constitutional protection under Article 30(1) and autonomy in administration, which includes the right to fix a reasonable fee. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that the Fee Regulatory Committee has acted within its jurisdiction under the Act of 2008. It is contended that fee fixation is a policy matter and the petitioner cannot claim absolute autonomy in fixation of fee. It is further submitted that the Committee has taken a uniform approach applicable to similarly situated institutions and no illegality is committed. 5 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the statutory scheme under Section 9 of the Act of 2008 mandates the Fee Regulatory Committee to determine fee structure having due regard to multiple institution-specific factors such as location, infrastructure, expenditure, investment, and reasonable surplus for growth and development of the institution. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy of Education (2002) 8 SCC 481 has categorically held that while regulation of fee is permissible to prevent profiteering and capitation fee, the fee fixation must not be mechanical or uniform across institutions, but must be determined after considering the individual financial and infrastructural profile of each institution. 9. In the present case, a perusal of Annexures P-1 and P-2 indicates that the Committee has adopted a generalized approach by granting uniform enhancement without undertaking institution- wise evaluation as mandated under Section 9 of the Act of 2008. The statutory requirement of considering relevant factors and providing individual opportunity of meaningful consideration appears to have not been fully adhered to. 10. This Court is of the considered view that while the Fee Regulatory Committee is competent to regulate fee, such power must be exercised strictly in accordance with statutory mandate and 6 constitutional principles. The impugned exercise, being not in consonance with Section 9 of the Act of 2008, cannot be sustained in its present form. However, instead of substituting its own determination, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the respondents/Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee to reconsider and determine the fee structure of the petitioner institution afresh in accordance with Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2008, and in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai (Supra). 12. The exercise shall be undertaken after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner institution and considering all relevant materials placed by it. 13. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha