Failure to afford a meaningful hearing before fee fixation violates statutory mandate and principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner, a private unaided medical college, challenged a Resolution dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) and a subsequent State Order dated 23.09.2025.

These orders fixed tuition fees for Postgraduate Medical Courses for the academic sessions 2024-25, 2025-26, and 2026-27 at rates significantly lower than those proposed by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner contended that the AFRC ignored financial data, audit reports, and liabilities while failing to provide a mandatory hearing as required by statute.

Notably, previous fee fixation attempts by the Respondent had been quashed by the High Court in 2023 for similar procedural lapses.

1. Whether the AFRC complied with the mandatory requirement of providing an "opportunity of being heard" under Section 9(2) of the Act of 2008 before fixing the fees.

2. Whether the AFRC failed to consider the statutory factors enumerated under Section 9(1) of the Act of 2008, such as infrastructure, administrative costs, and reasonable surplus, during the fee-determination process.

Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Act, 2008, which mandates that the Committee must have regard to factors like location, infrastructure, and expenditure [Section 9(1)] and provides that no fee shall be fixed without giving the institution an opportunity of being heard [Section 9(2)].

Modern Dental College Research Centre v. State of M.P. and Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh establish that the AFRC’s role is "regulatory," intended only to ensure that proposed fees do not amount to "profiteering" or "commercialization," while protecting the autonomy of unaided institutions.

The Court observed that Section 9(2) creates a mandatory two-stage process: first, the determination of fees based on Section 9(1) factors, and second, providing a meaningful hearing to the institution before final fixation.

The Respondents merely pointed to the presence of a college representative during a physical site inspection as evidence of a "hearing." The Court rejected this, holding that mere presence during inspection does not satisfy the statutory requirement of a meaningful hearing on the proposed fee structure.

the Court found that the impugned resolution was "non-speaking" as it lacked any finding that the Petitioner’s proposed fees constituted profiteering and failed to reflect a proper evaluation of the financial data and liabilities submitted by the college.

The Court quashed the Resolution dated 22.08.2024 and the State Order dated 23.09.2025. The matter was remitted to the Respondents to reconsider the fee fixation afresh for the academic years 2024-25 to 2026-27, strictly following the statutory factors and providing the Petitioner with an effective opportunity of being heard.