RAIPUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:21358
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 458 of 2026
1 - Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences Through Authorized Signatory,
Sh. Krishna Kumar Vadhwa, S/o Shri M.R. Vadhwa, Aged About 60
Years, R/o Rims Campus, Bhansoj Road, Nh-6, Village Godhi, Raipur
(C.G.).
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Family And Health Welfare
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Director Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, D.K.S. Bhawan
Premises, Raipur (C.G.).
3 - Admission And Fee Regulatory Committee Constituted Under The
Chhattisgarh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman
Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Act, 2008, Through Its President, Admission
And Fee Regulatory Committee, Womans Polytechnic Premises, Bairan
Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)

2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhasin, Advocate
along with Mr. Nishant Shokeen,
Advocate, Ms. Shalini Kashyap,
Advocate and Ms. Rashmi Priya,
Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
07/05/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for
the entire relevant records concerning the Petitioner,
from the Respondents for kind perusal:
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate
writ/order/direction quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the
Respondent No.1-State (Annexure P/1),qua the
Petitioner,
10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate
writ/order/direction quashing and setting aside the
impugned resolution dated 22.08.2024 passed by the
Respondent No.3-Admission and Fee Regulatory

3
Committee (Annexure P/2), qua the Petitioner;
10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate
writ/order/direction commanding the Respondent No.3 to
accept the fees proposed by the Petitioner for the
Academic Session 2024-25, 2025-26 & 2026-27;
10.5 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass
any other order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem just
and necessary in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts of the case, that, the present writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner–institution, namely Raipur Institute of Medical
Sciences, which is a private unaided medical college being run
and managed by Lord Buddha Education Society, a society duly
registered in accordance with law. The petitioner–institution was
established in the year 2012 and is affiliated with Pandit
Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Science and Ayush Private
College. It is the case of the petitioner that requisite permissions
have been granted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India, for conducting MBBS as well as Post
Graduate (MD/MS) medical courses. The petitioner–institution
was initially permitted to commence MBBS courses from the year
2012 and, subsequently, on account of its infrastructural facilities,
statutory compliances, and academic standards, it was also
granted permission to conduct PG Medical Courses from the year
2021 with an intake capacity of 63 students in various clinical and

4
non-clinical disciplines. It is further pleaded that the petitioner–
institution is a private unaided and self-financing institution
receiving no grant from the Central Government, State
Government or any local authority and, therefore, enjoys the
protection available under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India subject to reasonable regulation. It is the further case of the
petitioner that fee fixation in respect of professional courses is
regulated by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee
(AFRC) constituted under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Niji
Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam
Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2008. According to the petitioner,
the committee is empowered only to regulate and determine
whether the fees proposed by a private unaided institution are
reasonable and free from profiteering or commercialization.
Pursuant to notification dated 06.05.2022, a new committee was
constituted for fixation of fees. The petitioner submitted that earlier
also interim fee fixation undertaken by the AFRC had been
challenged before this Court in WPC No. 5282 of 2022 wherein
this Court, by order dated 06.12.2022, had observed that the
interim fees fixed by AFRC were extremely low and permitted the
petitioner to charge interim fees of Rs. 25 lakh for clinical courses
and Rs.6 lakh for non-clinical courses. Thereafter, the petitioner
again challenged the fee fixation exercise undertaken for
academic sessions 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 in WPC
No.3415 of 2023 and WPC No.3488 of 2023. This Court, vide

5
judgment dated 24.08.2023, quashed the fee fixation orders on
the ground that no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the
petitioner as mandated under Section 9(2) of the Act of 2008 and
liberty was granted to the authorities to undertake the exercise
afresh strictly in accordance with law. Similar orders were also
passed by this Court in WPC No.3782 of 2023. Subsequently, the
AFRC vide communication dated 16.02.2024 and email dated
18.03.2024 directed the petitioner to submit relevant documents,
audit reports, processing fees, and proposed fee structure for
fixation of fees in respect of PG Medical Courses for the academic
sessions 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27. The petitioner
accordingly submitted all requisite documents along with its
proposed fee structure and financial details. Inspection of the
petitioner–institution was thereafter carried out on 16.04.2024. It is
the case of the petitioner that detailed financial data, expenditure
details, audit reports, liabilities, infrastructural requirements,
faculty expenditure, stipend enhancement orders, and
requirement of reasonable surplus were all placed before the
authorities. However, the AFRC thereafter passed the impugned
Resolution dated 22.08.2024 fixing the fees for PG Medical
Courses (Clinical) at Rs.9,84,500/- per annum and for Pre-
Clinical/Para-Clinical Courses at Rs.7,92,600/- per annum for the
academic sessions 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27.
Consequentially, the State Government issued order dated
23.09.2025 giving effect to the said resolution. Aggrieved by the

6
said fixation of fees, the petitioner has approached this Court
primarily on the ground that the impugned action has been
undertaken without granting effective opportunity of hearing as
mandated under Section 9(2) of the Act of 2008 and in violation of
the principles of natural justice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire exercise
undertaken by the respondent authorities in fixing the fees for PG
Medical Courses is wholly arbitrary, contrary to the statutory
mandate contained under Section 9 of the Act of 2008, and in
complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It has been
argued that Section 9(1) of the Act specifically obligates the
Committee to consider various relevant factors such as
infrastructure, expenditure on administration and maintenance,
staff salary, equipment, location of the institution, requirement of
reasonable surplus for growth and development, and other allied
considerations before fixation of fees. It has further been
contended that Section 9(2) specifically mandates that an
effective opportunity of hearing must be granted to the institution
before fixation of fees, which requirement is mandatory in nature.
Learned counsel submits that despite categorical directions
issued by this Court in earlier rounds of litigation, particularly in
WPC No.3415 of 2023 and WPC No.3488 of 2023 decided on
24.08.2023, wherein the earlier fee fixation exercise had been
quashed on identical grounds, the respondents have once again
repeated the same illegality and failed to provide any meaningful

7
hearing prior to fixation of fees. It has been submitted that though
the petitioner had supplied detailed financial records, audit
reports, expenditure statements, proposed fee structure, details of
enhanced stipend liabilities, infrastructure costs, loan liabilities,
and comparative fee structures prevailing in the States of Madhya
Pradesh and Maharashtra, none of these relevant considerations
find place in the impugned resolution, thereby demonstrating total
non-application of mind. Learned counsel further argued that the
impugned resolution and consequential State order are
completely non-speaking in nature and do not record any finding
whatsoever that the fee proposed by the petitioner amounted to
profiteering or commercialization of education. It has additionally
been contended that the petitioner–institution has suffered
enormous financial losses running into several crores and its
financial condition has substantially deteriorated due to arbitrary
fee fixation, as reflected from the Chartered Accountant
certificates and CRISIL credit rating placed on record. Learned
counsel also submitted that despite specific directions issued by
this Court on 16.02.2026 directing the State to produce material
demonstrating compliance of Section 9(2) of the Act of 2008, no
such material has been placed before this Court till date. On the
aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that the impugned
resolution dated 22.08.2024 and consequential Government
Order dated 23.09.2025 deserve to be quashed and the matter
deserves to be remanded back for fresh consideration strictly in

8
accordance with law. He has placed reliance upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Glocal
Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital and Research
Center vs. Union of India, (2017) 15 SCC 690, T.M.A Pai
Foundation vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, Islamic
Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC
697, P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537,
Margdarshan Sansthan Shiksha Mahavidyalaya vs. State of
Chhattisgarh passed in WPC No. 3674/2011, Harihar Prasad
Parate vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others passed in WPS No.
3341/2015 and Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed
Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and
supported the impugned resolution as well as the consequential
Government order. Learned State counsel submitted that the
petitioner–institution was granted adequate opportunity during the
process of fee fixation and, therefore, the allegation regarding
violation of principles of natural justice is wholly misconceived. It
has been argued that the respondent No.3–Committee had
conducted inspection of the petitioner–institution on 16.04.2024
and the representative of the petitioner–institution, namely Dr.
Gambhir Singh, was present during the proceedings and was
afforded sufficient opportunity to place all relevant materials
before the Committee. Learned State counsel further submitted
that paragraph 12 of the impugned resolution itself records that

9
opportunity of hearing had been granted to the representative of
the petitioner–institution and that the petitioner had also proposed
its fee structure during the proceedings. According to the
respondents, despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner failed
to furnish complete supporting documents justifying the proposed
fee structure and, therefore, the Committee proceeded to
determine the fee on the basis of available material. It has further
been submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner,
particularly the judgment dated 07.09.2023 passed in WPC
No.3782 of 2023, are distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the
earlier cases there was total absence of opportunity of hearing,
whereas in the present case the petitioner had participated in the
proceedings and was heard by the Committee. Learned State
counsel contended that the Committee has acted strictly within its
statutory powers under the Act of 2008 and has fixed fees after
due consideration of relevant factors. It has also been argued that
the writ petition is devoid of merit and no interference is warranted
by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. In order to appreciate and adjudicate the controversy involved in
the present case in its proper perspective, it is necessary to
consider the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Niji Vyavsayik
Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka
Nirdharan) Act, 2008. Accordingly, the relevant

10
provisions/chapters of the said Act are reproduced hereinbelow for
ready reference and proper appreciation of the issue involved in
the matter:-
CHAPTER- I
Preliminary
3. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
(c) “committee means the Admission and Fee Regulatory
Committee constituted under section 4;
(e) “fee” means all fee including tuition fee and
development charges;
(n) “professional educational institution" means a college or
a school or an inst-tute by whatever name called, imparting
professional education, affiliated to a State University,
including a private university established or incorporated by
an Act of the State Legislature or constituent unit of a
deemed to he university under section 3 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) and approved or
recognized by the competent statutory body regulating
professional education;”
CHAPTER- II
Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee
4 (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the
official Gazette, constitute a Committee to be called the
Admission an Fee Regulatory Committee, for the
supervision and guidance of the admission process and for

11
the fixation of fee to be charged from candidates seeking
admission in a private professional educational institution.
Provided that Notwithstanding anything contained in any
act the lees once fixed shall be revisable every year or in a
gap of three years as may be necessary, by the Fee
Regulating Committee.
(2) The Committee shall be presided by a Chairperson
who has been a Vice-Chancellor of a Central University or
a State University or an institution deemed to be University
or a judicial officer not below the rank of Supertime scale
or senior administrative officer not below the rank of
Principal Secretary to the State Government or Joint
Secretary to the Government of India and shall include
four other members having expertise in matters of finance,
administration or law, technical education and medical
education.
(Financial expenses will be met separately by the
departments of technical education/medical education.
Budget to meet out the expenses incurred in functioning of
the committee will be allocated by the State Government
separately every year.)
(8) The Committee may require a private aided or unaided
professional educational institution or, a deemed University
to furnish, by a prescribed date information as may be
necessary for enabling the Committee to determine the fee

12
that may be charged by the institution in respect of each
professional course, and the fee so determined shall be
valid for such period as notified hy the State Government.
(11) The Committee shall have the power to regulate its
own procedure in all matters arising out of the discharged
of its functions and shall for the purposes of making any
enquiry under this Act have all the powers of a civil court
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while
trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
witness and examining him on oath:
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any
document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) issuing commissions for the examinations if witnesses.
CHAPTER- IV
Fixation of Fee
9. (1) Having regard to-
(i) the location of the private unaided professional
educational institution:
(ii) the nature of the professional course;
(iii) the cost of land and building:
(iv) the available infrastructure, teaching, non teaching
staff and equipments:
(v) the expenditure on administration and maintenance:

13
(vi) a reasonable surplus required for growth and
development of the professional institution.
(vii) any other relevant factor.
the Committee shall determine, in the manner prescribed,
the fee to be charged by a private unaided professional
educational institution.
(2)The Committee shall give the institution an opportunity
of being heard before fixing any fee:
Provided that no such foe, as may be fixed by the
Committee, shall amount to profiteering or
commercialization of education.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Najiya Neermunda
& Another vs. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust and
others, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 515, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed as under:-
“19. The other issue that requires to be considered relates
to the restrictions placed by the High Court in the matter of
fixation of fee by the Committee. We find force in the
submission of Mr Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State, that no fetter can be
placed on the exercise of power for fee fixation by the
Committee, which shall be in accordance with the factors
that are mentioned in Section 11 of the 2017 Act. The High
Court committed an error in directing the Committee to
take into account only audited balance sheets, and

14
provisional profit and loss accounts in the absence of
audited balance sheets, to fix the fee. Though we are in
agreement with the submission made on behalf of the
managements that the fee as proposed by them should be
considered by the Committee, it is no more res integra that
the right conferred on the institutions to fix fee for
professional courses is subject to regulation. It need not
be reiterated that unaided professional institutions have
the autonomy to decide on the fee to be charged, subject
to the fee not resulting in profiteering or collection of
capitation fee. Regulation of fee is within the domain of the
Committee which shall ensure that the fee is non-
exploitative and reasonable. There is no need to repeat
the judgments of this Court, especially P.A. Inamdar [P.A.
Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 : 2
SCEC 745] , which have been copiously referred to by the
High Court in the 3 rounds of litigation to indicate the
principles to be followed for fixation of fee in private
medical colleges.
20. Suffice it to mention that the Committee shall
reconsider the proposals of the managements for fee
fixation 2017-18 onwards by taking into account the
factors mentioned in Section 11 of the 2017 Act and the
law laid down by this Court in Modern Dental College &
Research Centre [Modern Dental College & Research

15
Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353 : 7 SCEC 1] .
The delay that is caused in finalising the fee in medical
colleges is beneficial neither to the institutions nor the
students. Therefore, we direct the Committee to
expeditiously reconsider the proposals of the private self-
financing colleges for fee fixation from 2017-18 onwards.
Needless to mention that fee for earlier years also needs
to be finalised in case it has not been done in respect of
any college. It can direct the managements to furnish any
information that is required for the purpose of arriving at a
decision that the fee proposed by the managements is
neither excessive nor exploitative in nature. A reasonable
opportunity should be given to the managements of private
self-financing colleges in respect of their proposals for fee
fixation. The entire exercise shall be completed within a
period of three months from today.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Icon Education
Society vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC
289, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“12. Thereafter, in the seven-Judge Bench decision of this
Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [P.A.
Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 : 2
SCEC 745] , this Court unanimously held that, as per the
law declared in T.M.A. Pai Foundation [T.M.A. Pai
Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 : 2

16
SCEC 1] , setting up a reasonable fees structure is also a
component of the right to establish and administer an
institution, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the
Constitution, and every institution is free to devise its own
fees structure subject to the limitation that there can be no
profiteering and no capitation fees can be charged directly
or indirectly or in any form. It was further held that it is
permissible to regulate admission and fees structure for
achieving that purpose. The question whether guidelines
could have been issued in the matter of regulating the
fees payable by students to educational institutions was,
therefore, answered in the affirmative by holding that
every institution is free to devise its own fees structure but
the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing
profiteering and capitation fees.
16. Accepting the said interpretation, this Court in Modern
Dental College & Research Centre [Modern Dental
College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7
SCC 353 : 7 SCEC 1] observed that the AFRC which is
set up for that purpose is discharging only a regulatory
function, as the fees which a particular educational
institution seeks to charge from its students has to be
suggested by the said educational institution itself and the
AFRC is empowered to satisfy itself that the fees
proposed by the educational institution did not amount to

17
profiteering or commercialisation of education and was
based on the intelligible factors mentioned in Section 9(1)
of the 2007 Act. This Court, therefore, concluded that it
was only a regulatory measure and did not take away the
power of the educational institutions to fix their own fees.
17. The supplementing opinion of R. Banumathi, J., noted
that, though Section 9 of the 2007 Act empowered the
AFRC to determine the fees, the High Court had read
down Sections 4(1), 4(8) and 9 of the 2007 Act, by
holding that those provisions “in substance empower the
Committee to be only satisfied that the fees proposed by
a private professional educational institution did not
amount to profiteering or commercialisation of education
and was based on the factors mentioned in Section 9(1)
of the 2007 Act”. The learned Judge accordingly held that
the State had the legislative competence to enact the
2007 Act and regulation of fixation of the fees was to
protect the right of the students in having access to higher
education without being subjected to exploitation in the
form of profiteering. The learned Judge concurred with the
majority view in upholding the validity of the impugned
legislation and affirmed the decision [Modern Dental
College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7
SCC 353 : 7 SCEC 1] of the High Court.
19. Therefore, as matters stand, the 2007 Act has been

18
interpreted to mean that the AFRC, constituted
thereunder, exercises only the power of “regulation” in
respect of the fees proposed by the institution,
conditioned by the parameters in Section 9(1) of the 2007
Act. In effect, the liberty given to unaided institutions to
propose the fees that they wish to charge, keeping in
mind the factors set out in Section 9(1) of the 2007 Act,
stands protected and it is only by way of regulating the
fees so proposed that the AFRC would exercise the
power of reviewing the proposed fees, after giving due
opportunity of hearing to the educational institution
concerned. The contrary stand taken by the AFRC, as is
evident from its communications to the appellant society,
therefore cannot be countenanced. It is not open to the
AFRC to seek to unilaterally fix the fees to be charged by
the appellant society for the professional courses offered
through its educational institutions.
20. At the same time, it is not open to the appellant
society to claim complete immunity in undertaking this
exercise and seek exemption from any interference by the
AFRC. The appellant society must necessarily submit the
fees proposed by it in respect of the professional courses
offered through its institutions to the AFRC for the
purpose of review and regulation, as per the provisions of
Section 9 of the 2007 Act and the principles laid down by

19
this Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove.
Making this position clear, the appeal is disposed of
accordingly.”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Glocal Medical
College and Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre
vs. Union of India, (2017) 15 SCC 690, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed as under:-
“21. A bare perusal of the letter dated 31-5-2017 would
demonstrate in clear terms that the same is dehors any
reason in support thereof. It mentions only about the grant
of conditional permission on the basis of the approval of
the Oversight Committee, and an opportunity of hearing
vis-à-vis the recommendations of MCI in its letter dated
15-1-2017 highlighting the deficiencies detected in course
of the inspection undertaken on 21-12-2016 and 22-12-
2016, but is conspicuously silent with regard to the
outcome of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee,
the recommendations recorded therein both of the
Committee and the DGHS and more importantly those of
the Oversight Committee conveyed by its communication
dated 14-5-2017, all earlier in point of time to the decision
taken. This assumes importance in view of the
unequivocal mandate contained in the proviso to Section
10-A(4) of the Act, dealing with the issue, amongst others
of establishment of a medical college. The relevant

20
excerpt of sub-section (4) of Section 10-A of the Act for
ready reference is set out hereinbelow: “10-A. (4) The
Central Government may, after considering the scheme
and the recommendations of the Council under sub-
section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such
other particulars as may be considered necessary by it
from the person or college concerned, and having regard
to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), either approve
(with such conditions, if any, as it may consider
necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such
approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1):
Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the
Central Government except after giving the person or
college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being
heard:” (emphasis supplied)
22. Though as the records testify, a hearing was provided
to the petitioner Colleges/Institutions through the Hearing
Committee constituted by the DGHS (as mentioned in the
proceedings dated 23-3-2017) qua the recommendations
of MCI contained in its letter dated 15-1-2017, as noted
hereinabove, the proceedings of the Hearing Committee
do reflect varying views of the Hearing Committee and the
DGHS, the latter recommending various aspects bearing
on deficiency to be laid before the OC for an appropriate
decision. The Central Government did forward, albeit a

21
pruned version of the proceedings of the Hearing
Committee to the Oversight Committee after a time lag of
almost six weeks. The reason therefor is however not
forthcoming. The Oversight Committee, to reiterate,
though on a consideration of all the relevant facts as well
as the views of MCI and the proceedings of the Hearing
Committee as laid before it, did cast aside the deficiencies
minuted by MCI and recommended confirmation of the
letters of permission of the petitioner Colleges/Institutions,
the impugned decision has been taken by the Central
Government which on the face of it does not contain any
reference whatsoever of all these developments.
23. As a reasonable opportunity of hearing contained in
the proviso to Section 10-A(4) is an indispensable
precondition for disapproval by the Central Government of
any scheme for establishment of a medical college, we
are of the convinced opinion that having regard to the
progression of events and the divergent/irreconcilable
views/recommendations of MCI, the Hearing Committee,
the DGHS and the Oversight Committee, the impugned
order, if sustained in the singular facts and circumstances,
would be in disaccord with the letter and spirit of the
prescription of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner institutions/colleges, as enjoined under Section
10-A(4) of the Act. This is more so in the face of the

22
detrimental consequences with which they would be
visited. It cannot be gainsaid that the reasonable
opportunity of hearing, as obligated by Section 10-A(4)
inheres fairness in action to meet the legislative edict.
With the existing arrangement in place, MCI, the Central
Government and for that matter, the Hearing Committee,
DGHS, as in the present case, the Oversight Committee
and the colleges/institutions concerned are integral
constituents of the hearing mechanism so much so that
severance of any one or more of these, by any measure,
would render the process undertaken to be mutilative of
the letter and spirit of the mandate of Section 10-A(4).
24. Having regard to the fact that the Oversight
Committee has been constituted [Modern Dental College
and Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353 :
7 SCEC 1] by this Court and is also empowered to
oversee all statutory functions under the Act, and further
all policy decisions of MCI would require its approval, its
recommendations, to state the least, on the issue of
establishment of a medical college, as in this case, can by
no means be disregarded or left out of consideration.
Noticeably, this Court did also empower the Oversight
Committee to issue appropriate remedial directions. In our
view, in the overall perspective, the materials on record
bearing on the claim of the petitioner institutions/colleges

23
for confirmation of the conditional letters of permission
granted to them require a fresh consideration to obviate
the possibility of any injustice in the process.”
10. The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Raipur Institute
of Medical Sciences vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others
passed in WPC No. 3415/2023 and WPC No. 3488/2023 the the
High Court of Chhattisgarh has observed as under:-
“10. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for
respective parties, I find it appropriate to extract the relevant
provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 2008.
“9. Factors. - (1) Having regard to,-
(i) the location of the private unaided professional
educational institution; 7
(ii) the nature of the professional course;
(iii) the cost of land and building;
(iv) the available infrastructure, teaching, non-teaching staff
and equipments;
(v) the expenditure on administration and maintenance;
(vi) a reasonable surplus required for growth and
development of the professional institution;
(vii) any other relevant factor, the Committee shall determine,
in the manner prescribed, the fee to be charged by a private
unaided professional educational institution,
(2) The Committee shall give the institution an opportunity of
being heard before fixing any fee : Provided that no such fee,

24
as may be fixed by the Committee, shall amount to
profiteering or commercialization of education.”
11. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners are that
they were not served with any notice giving opportunity of
being heard before fixing the fees. Contention of learned
State counsel is that they have served notice to petitioners’
institutions on 06.01.2023 by hard copy and also by
whatssap message. Copy of the notices are placed on
record as Annexure R-1 and R-2. The notice Annexure R-2
is dated 09.12.2022 asking the noticee to provide the
necessary information as mentioned in the list to respondent
No.3 so that fees for the course of MD/MS/PG and MBBS
can be revised. The another letter/notice dated 06.01.2023 is
given for inspection of colleges for fixing of revised 8 fees. In
the subsequent notice dated 06.01.2023 it does not mention
that the fee is determined and notice is for finalization of the
fee.
12. Section 9 of the Act, 2008 is in two part. Section 9 (1)
provides for determining the fees the manner prescribed
considering several factors as mentioned in Section 9 (1) for
determining the fees. Section 9 (2) of the Act of 2008 talks of
Committee shall provide opportunity of hearing to the
institutions before fixing any fees. From the language used
under Section 9 (1) and (2), it is appearing in first stage,
respondent No.3 Committee constituted under the provisions

25
of the Act of 2008 has to first determine the fees keeping in
mind the factors mentioned therein or any relevant factors
and after determination of the fees, opportunity of hearing is
to be provided to the institutions before fixing of fee.
13. Admittedly in the first notice/letter, the Committee has
asked for relevant material and second notice/letter they
have fixed the date for inspection of the colleges, which in
compliance of provisions under Section 9 (1) of the Act of
2008. Respondent No.3 has not issued any notice/letter
providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner after
determination of fees and before fixing of the fee, which is
mandate under Sub-section 2 of Section 9 of the Act of
2008.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Najiya
Neermunda & Ors. (supra) has observed in para -19 and
20 which is as under :-
“19. …………..Though we are in agreement with the
submission made on behalf of the managements that the
fee as proposed by them should be considered by the
Committee, it is no more res integra that the right conferred
on the institutions to fix fee for professional courses is
subject to regulation. It need not be reiterated that unaided
professional institutions have the autonomy to decide on
the fee to be charged, subject to the fee not resulting in
profiteering or collection of capitation fee. Regulation of fee

26
is within the domain of the Committee which shall ensure
that the fee is non-exploitative and reasonable. There is no
need to repeat the judgments of this Court, especially P.A.
Inamdar & Ors. (supra), which have been copiously
referred to by the High Court in the 3 rounds of litigation to
indicate the principles to be followed for fixation of fee in
private medical colleges.
20. Suffice it to mention that the Committee shall
reconsider the proposals of the managements for fee
fixation 2017-18 onwards by taking into account the factors
mentioned in Section 11 of the 2017 Act and the law laid
down by this Court in Modern Dental College & Research
Centre (supra). The delay that is caused in finalizing the
fee in medical colleges is beneficial neither to the
institutions nor the students. Therefore, we direct the
Committee to expeditiously reconsider the proposals of the
private self- financing colleges for fee fixation from 2017-18
onwards……...”.
15. Reverting back to the facts of the present case and as
discussed above, that respondents have not provided any
opportunity of hearing to petitioner institution after
determination and before fixing of the fee in terms of
Section 9 (2) of the Act of 2008, and, 10 therefore, there is
violation of principles of natural justice in fixation of fee and
it is also in violation of Section 9 (2) of the Act of 2008.

27
16. For the forgoing discussions made hereinabove, the
writ petitions are allowed. The letter dated 13.01.2023 of
respondent No.3 and the order dated 03.03.2023 issued by
the State Government, Medical Education Department, are
hereby quashed. The respondents are at liberty to re-do
the exercise for fixation of the fee considering all the
relevant material as provided under Section 9(1) and after
providing an opportunity of hearing to petitioners institutes
in terms of Section 9 (2) of the Act of 2008. Keeping in
mind the time period elapsed from the date of fixing of the
fees, respondent No.3 shall conclude the proceedings for
fixation of fees in terms of Section 9 (1) and (2) of the Act of
2008 within a period of three weeks and thereafter the
respondent- State shall pass orders on the same within
further period of two weeks.”
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the material available on record, this Court finds that the
principal issue involved in the present matter relates to
compliance of the mandatory requirement contained under
Section 9(2) of the Act of 2008, which obligates the Committee
to provide an opportunity of hearing to the institution before
fixation of fees. This Court further finds that in earlier rounds of
litigation involving the very same petitioner–institution, this Court
vide judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed in WPC No.3415 of
2023 and WPC No.3488 of 2023 had specifically held that

28
absence of opportunity of hearing before fixation of fees
amounts to violation of Section 9(2) of the Act of 2008 as well as
breach of principles of natural justice. Despite such categorical
findings and directions issued by this Court, the respondents
have failed to place any substantial material demonstrating
effective compliance of Section 9(2) of the Act. Merely recording
in the resolution that the representative of the petitioner was
present during inspection proceedings cannot be treated as due
compliance of the mandatory statutory requirement of
meaningful opportunity of hearing before final fixation of fees.
The impugned resolution further does not disclose proper
consideration of the statutory factors enumerated under Section
9(1) of the Act of 2008, including infrastructure expenditure,
administrative costs, financial liabilities, requirement of
reasonable surplus, and financial data submitted by the
petitioner. The impugned orders also do not record any finding
that the fee proposed by the petitioner amounted to profiteering
or commercialization of education. Consequently, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned exercise suffers from
non-application of mind and violation of mandatory statutory
procedure of an opportunity of hearing as envisaged under
Section 9 (2) of the Act of 2008.
12. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner that before fixing the fees the petitioner–institution has
not been afforded proper and effective opportunity of hearing,

29
which is mandatory in nature under Chapter 4 Section 9(2) of the
Act of 2008, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned
action cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
13. Accordingly, while quashing order dated 23.9.2025 the matter is
remitted back to the concerned respondent authorities to reconsider
the issue afresh strictly in accordance with law while granting due
and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner–institution before
fixation of any fees in respect of the PG Courses for the academic
years 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27. Consequently, the impugned
Resolution dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Admission and Fee
Regulatory Committee and the consequential Order dated
23.09.2025 issued by the State Government are hereby quashed.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat

30
Head Note
Non-compliance of mandatory requirement under Section 9(2)
of the Act of 2008 — mere presence of petitioner’s
representative during inspection not sufficient compliance of
opportunity of hearing — failure to consider statutory factors
under Section 9(1) and absence of finding regarding
profiteering/commercialization of education — impugned
resolution and orders held to suffer from non-application of
mind and violation of mandatory statutory procedure, such
order should be quashed.