IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13793 of 2026 Krupajal Engineering College, Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner(s) Represented by Adv.– Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Party(s) Represented by Adv. Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 03.07.2026 (Hybrid mode) 01. 1. Heard Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suvalaxmi Bose, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner-institution has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition to explore the following relief:- “A. Admit this writ petition, call for the records; B. Issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other further writ/directions to the Opposite Parties to quash the notification dated 27th Nov 2025, issued by the Opposite Party No.1 at Annexure-1 to the present Writ Petition; C. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to decide the Course fees for the Petitioner institution by granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and strictly in accordance with Section 7(1) of the OPEI Act, and, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court; D. Issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other further writ/directions to the Opposite Parties to take no coercive actions against the Petitioner institute for collecting the fees from the students concerned as per the prevailing rate of the preceding years' fees notified by the State Government, till the final disposal of the present Writ Petition. E. Make the Rule absolute, if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or file insufficient cause in a time-bound manner; and G. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.” 3. After extensively hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the entire argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is paused down to one issue i.e. non-adherence to the principle of natural justice before passing the final order dated 27.11.2025 by the opposite party No.1 vide Annexure-1 fixing the proposed fee structure for B.Tech, M.Tech and MCA course for the Academic Session 2025-26 at Rs.38,500/-, Rs.44,500/- and Rs.38,500/- respectively. He has pointed out to this Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-5 of the order dated 03.12.2024 in S.L.P (c) No.21782 of 2023 has very categorically held as under:- “5. It is a settled principle of law that any order inviting adverse civil consequences cannot be passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice. In any case, the relevant provision itself requires a hearing to be given to the institution(s) before a revision is made.” In the aforementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the issue regarding the recommendation made by the Fee Structure Committee for various institutions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that before the recommendations were made by the Fee Structuring Committee revising the Fee Structure, the institutions were not given adequate opportunity of hearing. Page 3 of 4 4. It is ample clear from Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission & Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007 (for brevity the “Act of 2007”) that the Fee Structure Committee as well as the State Government would determine the fee structure by following a set up procedure. One of the requirement to be followed before determination of fee structure is affording opportunity to the institution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking us to Annexure-4, which is a letter dated 18.08.2025 has pointed out that the letter has not indicated any date of hearing. He submitted that the letter itself would lead to the only conclusion that before the Fee Structuring Committee finally passed the order dated 27.11.2025 at Annexure-1 no audience was given to the petitioner- institution by the Committee. 6. Although the letter indicates that the representation for reconsideration of fee structure by the petitioner-institution will be placed before the Fee Structure Committee on the next meeting for necessary consideration, but the date of meeting has not been indicated in the said letter. Therefore, it appears that the institution remained in dark before passing the final order dated 27.11.2025 at Annexure-1. 7. Relying upon the other annexures enclosed with the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner could successfully demonstrate that no hearing whatsoever was afforded to the institution before the final call in determining the fee structure was taken by the opposite parties. 8. Learned counsel for the State could not dispose the same. 9. On hearing both the parties, we reach at irresistible conclusion that principle of natural justice needs to be followed in any circumstances not only as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but also as per the mandate of the Act of 2007. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct the Fee Structuring Committee to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-institution. The petitioner-institution shall approach the Fee Structuring Committee on 7th August, 2026 and the Fee Structuring Committee shall fix a particular date to provide the petitioner-institution an opportunity of hearing. If they deserve merit, the Fee Structure already determined may be varied. 10. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Sibo Sankar Mishra) Judge Ashok MOHAPATRA