MGR Educational Society v. Department. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

1. Malla Reddy Educational Society, Having office at Sy. No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenapally, Secunderabad. Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Mahender Reddy.

2. Malla Reddy Engineering College for Women, Maisammaguda, Gundlapochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Rangareddy District. Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Mahender Reddy

3. Mr. Ch. Mahender Reddy, S/o Ch. IValla Reddy, Aged. 45 years, Ri/o Sy. No 59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad AND ...PETITIONERS

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Dept, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee,2nd Floor, JNA & FAU Campus, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Mahaveer Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Member Secretary.

3. Telangana State Council for Higher Education, 1St Floor, JNTU Masab Tank Campus, Mahaveer Marg, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Represented by its Secretary.

4. Jawaharlal Nelru Technological University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar. 5. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2026, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500 028. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Aflcle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027 -28 has been recommended at Rs. 72,300/- per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs. 2,00,0001 per annum and Respondent No.2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearings held on 04.03.2025 and 03.09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs. 1,75,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O. Ms. No 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs. 72,300/- for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitroner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027- 28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No.2 dated 25.1O.2025 and 31 .10.2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdlction, and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, and the law laid down by thrs Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same. b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs. 2,00,000i- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y.2027-28, as proposed by the Petitioner lnstitution. c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,75,0001 per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26to A.Y.2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No. 2 during the personal hearings held on 04.03.2025 and 03.0S.2025. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 95,0001 per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027'28' including by suspending the effect and operation of the recommendations of Respondent No.2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31.10.2025 and G.o. Ms. No.06 dated 04.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 1, in so far as the Petitioner lnstitution is concerned and to the extent of permitting the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 95,000/- as was prevailing for the previous block period, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI TARUN G.REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Ms. SUJATHA KURAPATI, AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION & SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY, AGP, attached to the O/o. of ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY' SC FOR TAFRC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR JNTUH wRIT PETITION NO: 17863 OF 2026 Between:

1. MGR Educational Society, 173 Plassey Lane, Mallareddy Gardens, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, 500011 Rep. by its Secretary Mr. C. Gopal Reddy

2. CMR College of Engineering and Technology, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad 501401 Rep. by its Correspondent Mr. C. GoPal ReddY

3. Mr. Mr. C. Gopal Reddy, S/o Late Malla Reddy, aged 53 years, Ri/o Plot No. 33, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS

2. Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, 2nd Floor, JNAandFAU Campus, Opp. lVlahavir Hospital, Mahaveer Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Member Secretary.

3. Telangana State Council for Higher Education, '1st Floor, JNTU Masab Tank Campus, Mahaveer tVlarg, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Represented by its Secretary.

4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar. 5. The Convenor TG EAPCET 2026, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad 500 028 ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .1O.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027 -28 has been recommended at Rs. 9'1 ,200/- per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs. 1,75,0001 per annum and Respondent No.2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearings held on 21 .02.2025 and 03.09 2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs. 1,55,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No.1 in issuing G.O. [\/s. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs. 91,2001- for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.y. 202728 based on the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, u nconstitutional and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules,2006, and the law laid down by this Honble Court and the Honble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs. 1,75,0001- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y.2027-28, as proposed by the petitioner lnstitution c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,55,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y.2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No. 2 during the personal hearings held on 27 .02.2025 and 03.09.2025. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Pbtition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 1,15'0001 per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y. 2027 -28 ' including by suspending the effect and operation of the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31.10.2025 and G.O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. '1 , in so far as the Petitioner lnstitution is concerned and to the extent of permitting the Petitioner Institution to collect a fee of Rs. 1,'15,000/- as was prevailing for the previous block period, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI TARUN G.REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. SUJATHA KURAPATI, AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION & SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY, AGP, attached to the O/o. of ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, SC FOR TAFRC Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR JNTUH WRIT P ETITION NO: 17864 OF 2026 Betvveen:

1. Chandramma Educational Society, Sy. No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Rep. by its Secretary, Ch. Mahender Reddy. 2. Malla Reddy College of Engineering, Maisammaguda, Dhulapally Village, Hakimpet, Medchal Mandal, R.R. District. Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Mahender Reddy

3. Mr. Ch. Mahender Reddy, S/o Ch. Malla Reddy, Aged 45 years, Rl/o Sy. No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad AND .,.PETITIONERS

1. The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary, v-Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee,2nd Floor, JNA & FAU Campus, Opp. t\,4ahavir Hospital, Mahaveer Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Rep. by its lvlember Secretary.

3. Telangana State Council for Higher Education, 1st Floor, JNTU Masab Tank Campus, Mahaveer ttilarg, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Represented by its Secretary,

4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technologrcal University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar. 5. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2026, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad 500 028 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Nlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y. 2027 -28 has been recommended at Rs. 76,100/- per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum and Respondent No.2, after due consideratron of the said proposal and upon personal hearings held on 04.03.2025 and 02.09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs. 1,15,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O. lVs. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs. 76,100t for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027 -28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 19g3, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules,2006, and the law laid down by this Honble Court and the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs. 1 ,20,OOO/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y.2027-28, as proposed by the Petitioner lnstitution c. ln the alternative, direct the Respohdents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,15'000/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y.2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No. 2 during the personal hearings held on 04.03.2025 and 02.O9.2025. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 80,0001 per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of A.Y.2025-26 lo A.Y. 2027-28, including by suspending the effect and operation of the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025 and G.O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 1, in so far as the Petitioner lnstitution is concerned and to the extent of permitting the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 80,000/- as was prevailing for the previous block period, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI TARUN G.REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No'1: Ms. SUJATHA KURAPATI' AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION & SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY' AGP, AttAChEd to the O/o. of ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, SC FOR TAFRC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR JNTUH WRIT PETITION NO: 17866 OF 2026 Between:

1. CMR Engineering Educatronal Soceity, Having office at Plot No. 1, Sy. No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenapally, Secunderabad. Rep. by its Secretary Mr. C. Srisailam Reddy.

2. CMR Engineering College, Having office at Kandlakoya Village, Medchal [\/andal, Medchal District, Hyderabad 501401 Rep. by its Correspondent Mr. C. Srisailam Reddy.

3. Mr. C. Srisailam Reddy, S/o Ch. Narasimha Reddy Reddy, Aged 43 years Rl/o Plot No. '1 , Sy. No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad AND ...PETITIONERS '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee,2nd Floor, JNA & FAU Campus, Opp. lVlahavir Hospital, Mahaveer Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Rep. by its [Vlember Secretary

3. Telangana State Council for Higher Education, 1st Floor, JNTU Masab Tank Campus, Mahaveer [t/arg, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Represented by its Secretary.

4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar. 5. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2026, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad 500 028. .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Nlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.'10.2025 and 31 10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027 -28 has been recommended at Rs.70,000/- per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs. 1,50,0001 per annum and Respondent No.2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearings held on 27.02.2025 and 03.09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs. 1,45,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs. 70'0001 for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner Institution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027 -28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31.10.2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983' the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y.2027-28, as proposed by the Petitioner lnstitution c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. '1 ,45'0001 per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y.2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No. 2 during the personal hearings held on 27.02.2025 and 03.09.2025.

1.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 75,0001 per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y. 2027-28' including by suspending the effect and operation of the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025 and G.O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 1, in so far as the Petitioner lnstitution is concerned and to the extent of permitting the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 75,000/- as was prevailing for the previous block period, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI TARUN G.REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. SUJATHA KURAPATI, AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION & SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY, AGP, attached to the O/o. of ADDL' ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, SC FOR TAFRC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR JNTUH WRIT PETITION NO: 17868 OF 2026 Between

1. CM Educational Society, Having office at Sy. No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Mahender Reddy. 2. Malla Reddy College of Engineering and Technology, Maisammaguda, Dhulapally Village, Hakimpet, Medchal Mandal, R.R. District. Rep. by its Secretary l\,4r. Mahender Reddy

3. Mr. Ch. Mahender Reddy, S/o Ch. Malla Reddy, Aged.45 years, RJo Sy. No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad AND ...PETITIONERS

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, 2nd Floor, JNAandFAU Campus. Opp. IVlahavir Hospital, Mahaveer Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Member Secretary.

3. Telangana State Council for Higher Education, 1st Floor, JNTU Masab Tank Campus, Mahaveer trlarg, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Represented by its Secretary.

4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar. 5. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2026, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500 028 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.10.2025 and 31 10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28 has been recommended at Rs. 99,800/- per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs. 2,00,0001 per annum and Respondent No. 2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearings held on 04.03.2025 and 03.09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs. '1 ,45,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs. 99,800/- for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31.10.2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, uriconstitutional and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of capitation Fee) Act, 1983, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same. b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y.2027-28, as proposed by the Petitioner lnstitution. c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,45,0001 per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y.2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No. 2 during the personal hearings held on 04.03.2025 and 03'09.2025. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. '1 ,'10,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of A.Y- 2025-26 to A.Y' 2027 -28 including by suspending the effect and operation of the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10-2025 and G.O. Ms. No 06 dated 04.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 1, in so far as the Petitioner lnstitution is concerned and to the extent of permitting the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 1,10,0001 as was prevailing for the previous block period, pending disposal of ' the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI TARUN G.REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Ms. SUJATHA KURAPATI, AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION & SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY, AGP, attached to the O/o. of ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, SC FOR TAFRC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR JNTUH WRIT PETITION NO: 17872 OF 2026 Between:

1. CI\i{ R Technical Education Society, Having office at Plot No 33, Sy. No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Rep. by its Chairman Mr. C. Gopal Reddy.

2. CMR Technical Campus, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. Rep. by its Chairman Mr. C. Gopal Reddy

3. Mr. Mr. C. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Late Malla Reddy, aged. 53 years, R/o. Plot No. 33, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. AND ..PETITIONERS

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, 2nd Floor, JNAandFAU Campus, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Mahaveer Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Member Secretary.

3. Telangana State Council for Higher Education, 1st Floor, JNTU Masab Tank Campus, Arlahaveer Marg, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Represented by its Secretary.

4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar. 5. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2026, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan lvlasab Tank Hyderabad - 500 028. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, ..,RESPONDENTS a. Declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 lo A.Y. 2027-28 has been recommended at Rs. 79,700/- per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum and Respondent No.2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearings held on 27.02.2025 and 03.09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs. 1,45,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs. 79,700/- for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31.10.2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act' 1983' the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same. b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notlfy the fee of Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y.2O27-28, as proposed by the Petitioner lnstitution. c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,45,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025'26 1o A.Y.2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No. 2 during the personal hearings held on 27 .02.2025 and 03.09.2025. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 1'05,0001 per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of A.Y- 2025-26 lo A.Y. 2027-28, including by suspending the effect and operation of the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025 and G.O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 1, in so far as the Petitioner lnstitution is concerned and to the extent of permitting the Petitioner lnstitution to collect a fee of Rs. 1,05,000/- as was prevailing for the previous block period, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI TARUN G.REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. SUJATHA KURAPATI, AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION & SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY, AGP, attached to the O/o. of ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, SC FOR TAFRC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR JNTUH The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION Nos.1 7856 17859 17863 17864 17866 17868 and 17872 o12O26 DATED: 12th JUNE 2026 Between Guru Nanak Education Society ... Petitioners AND The State of Telangana and four others Respondents COMMON ORDER The Writ Petition No'17856 of 2026 is filed by the petitioners with the following prayer 'to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitroner lnstitutron for the block period A Y. 2025-26 to A Y 2027-28 has been recommended at Rs.78,1001 per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs.1 ,65,0001 per annum and Respondent No, 2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearing held on 27.02.2025 and 03.09 2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs.'1 ,42,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 ln issuing ) l!rtrce luvvad 5r d.v, w P.Nos r7856 17859 t7€63 1786r' r7860 17808 and 17A/2 at 2A26 G.O Ms No 06 dated 04032026 notifying the said fee of Rs 78,1001- for the B.Tech course bffered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.y. 2025-26 to A Y 2027-2A based on the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10 2025 and 31 10 2025, as being wholty arbitrary, rllegal, u n constitutrona I and wrthout jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisrorrs of the Telangana Educational lnstrtutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Caprtation Fee) Act, 1993, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, and the law laid down by this Hon,ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same, b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs 1,65,000/- per annunr for the B.Tech course offered by the petitioner lnstitution for the block period A Y 2025-26 to A.y 2027-28. as proposed by the Petitroner lnstitutron. c ln the alternative drrect the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs 1,42,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period AY. 2025-26 to Ay. ZO2t-28 as determined and approved by Respondent No.2 during the personal hearinq held on 27.02.2025 and 30.09 2025 02 The Writ Petition No 17859 of 2026 is fited by the petjtioners with the following prayer: -...to rssue any appropriate wnt. order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Ma nda m us, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.1O.2OZS and 31 .10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course ) J!nrce.luwadr 5.d€vL w P Nos 17855. 17859. 17863 17864 17A66 17ABA and17872 ol 2026 offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y 2025-26 to A Y 2027-28 has been recommended at Rs. 72,3001 per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstrtution having proposed a fee of Rs 2,00,000/- per annum and Respondent No 2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearing held on 04.03 2025 and 03.09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs.1,75,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs. 72,3001- for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, u nconstitutional and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same; b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs.2,00,0001 per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28, as proposed by the Petitioner lnstitution; c. ln the alternative, d irect the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,75,000/-per annum for the B,Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28' as determined and approved by Respondent No.2 during the personal hearing held on 04 03.2025 and 03.09 2025...." .1 lrsn.€ ruvrad sr de,r W P llcs.'7856 17859 17863;7884 r /866 17868 3nd 11at?.t 2c26 03 The Writ petition No .17863 of 2026 is fited by the petitioners with the followrng prayer. "...to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 in issuinq the recommendations dated 29.10.2025 ,ni 31 10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstrtution for the block period A Y 2025-26 to A.y. 2027-28 has been recommended at Rs. 9.1 ,2001 per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs.1,75,0001 per annum and Respondent No'. 2, after due consideratron of the said proposal and upon personal hearing held on 27 02.202i and 03 09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs 1,55,0001 per annum for the said course. and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs.91 .20A1 for the B Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstrtution for the block period A.y. 2025-26 to A Y 2027-28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10 2025 and 31 10 2025, as being whoily arbitrary, rllegal. u ncon stitutiona I and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provrsrons of the Telangana Educational lnstitutrons (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, and the law laid down by flris Hon,ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same. b Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs 1,75,0001 per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the petitioner lnstitution for the block period A Y 2025-26 to Ay. 2027_28, as proposed by the Petitioner Institution. 5 lutnce Juwad' 5ridev' w P Nos 17856 17859 17863 17E64 17866. 17866 and 17872 0f2026 c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,55,000/-per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period AY 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No.2 during the personal hearing held on 27.02.2025 and 03 09.2025...."

04. The Writ Petition No 17864 of 2026 is filed by the petitioners with the following prayer "...to issue a Wrrt, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.10.2025 and 31 10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A Y. 2025-26 to A Y 2027-28 has been recommended at Rs. 76, 1 001 per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs.1 ,1 5,0001 per annum and Respondent No. 2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearing held on 29.10.2025 and 31.10.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs.1,20,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O. Ms. No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs.76,'1001 for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A Y' 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No.2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10 2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions .of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee 6 luit ce tuvvad Sr dev W P Nos 17856 17859 11863 i7804 17866 17868 and 17A72 ot 2A26 Rules. 2006. and the law laid down by this Hon,ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Cou( of lndia. and set aside the same, b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notrfy the fee of Rs 1 20 OOOI- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the petrtioner lnstrtution for the block period A Y 2025-26 to A.y. 2027-28, as proposed by the Petitioner lnstitution; c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,15 OOO/-per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.y. 2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No.2 durrng the personal hearing held on 04.03.2025 and 02 09 2025 ." 05 The Writ Petition No 17866 of 2026 is fited by the petrtroners with the following prayer: "to issue any approprrate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandarrus, a. Declaring the actron of Respondent No. 2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.iO.2025 and 31 10 2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstltution for the block period A Y 2025-26 to A Y 2027-28 has been recommended at Rs. 70,0001 per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs 1.50,000i- per annum and Respondent No. 2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearlng held on27 02.2025 and 03.09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs.1 45,000/- per annum for the sard course, and the consequential actjon of Respondent No. 1 rn issurng G.O lvls No. 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs.70,000/- for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.y. 7 l!strce ruvvadr 5r dev w P No!.17856 17859. 17863 17864 17866. 17868 and 17872 of 2026 2025-26 to A Y 2027-28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No.2 dated 29 10 2025 and 31.10.2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, u nconstitutional and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Caprtation Fee) Act, 1 983, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same; b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs.1,50,0001 per annum for the B Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28' as proposed by the Petitioner lnstitution; c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,45,0001per annum for the B Tech course offered by the Petltioner lnstitution for the block period AY. 2025-26 to AY. 2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No.2 during the personal hearing held on 27 02.2025 and 03.09.2025..." 06 The Writ Petition No 17868 o'f 2026 is filed by the petitioners with the following prayer "to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declarrng the actlon of Respondent No.2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.10 2025 and 31 .10.2025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A Y. 2025-26 to A.Y 2027'28 has been recommended at Rs. 99,800/- per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs.2,00,0001 per annum and Respondent No. 2, after 8 lLsn.€ iJVVad Sr dev. lv.P No5 17856 17359 11863 17864 r7866. 17E68 and 17872 0t 2026 due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearing held on 04.03.2025 and 03.09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs '1 ,45,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O lt/s No 06 dated 04.03.2026 notifying the said fee of Rs.99,8001 for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.y. 2025 26 to A.\,. ZO27-ZB based on the recommendations of Respondent No.2 dated 29 10 2025 and 31 .10.2025, as being whoily arbitrary, illegal, unco nstitutiona I ancj without jurisdiction, and rn violation of the provisions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006. and the law laid down by this Hon,ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia. and set aside the same, b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs 2,00,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the petttioner lnstrtutron for the block period A Y 2025-26 to A.y. 2027-28, as proposed by the Petrtioner lnstitution, c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs.1 45,0001per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period AY 2025-26 to A.y 2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No.2 during the personal hearing held on 04.03.2025 and 03 09 2025 ' 07 The Writ Petition No.17872 of 2026 is filed by the petitioners with the following prayer 9 lustrce luwdd 5rrdev w.P.Nos 17656. 17859 17863 17864 17A66 17ABA and 178/2 al2A26 "...to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a. Declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 in issuing the recommendations dated 29.10 2025 and 31 10.1025, whereby the fee for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A Y. 2027-28 has been recommended at Rs. 79,7001 per annum, despite the Petitioner lnstitution having proposed a fee of Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum and Respondent No. 2, after due consideration of the said proposal and upon personal hearing held on 27.02.2025 and 03.09.2025, having determined and approved a fee of Rs. 1,45,0001 per annum for the said course, and the consequential action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O. Ms No. 06 dated 04 032026 notifying the said fee of Rs. 79/001- for the B Tech course offered by the Petitroner lnstitution for the block period A Y. 2025-26 to A.Y 2027-28 based on the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2025 and 31 .10.2025, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, u nconstitutional and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provtsions of the Telangana Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, and set aside the same; b. Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith notify the fee of Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner lnstitution for the block period A.Y. 2025-26 to A-Y 2027-28, as proposed by the Petitioner lnstitution, c. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to notify the fee of Rs. 1,45,000/-per annum for the B.Tech course offered by the Petitioner Institution for the l0 lusl ce luvvad,sndeu W P Nos 17856 1785S 17863 17864 17866 17868 and 17Ai2 0t 20?6 block period AY 2025-26 to A y. 2027-28, as determined and approved by Respondent No.2 during the personal hearing hetd on 27 02 2025 and 03 09 2025 . " 08 Heard Sri Tarun G. Reddy learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W p Nos 17g56, 12g59, 17g63 17864, 7866, '17868 and 17872 of 2026 and Ms.Sujatha Kurapati, learned Assistant Government pleader for Higher Education, Sri G Chandra Sekhar Reddy learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC); Sri prabhakar perr, learned Standing Counsel for Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (JNTUH); Sri lVlallu Nethan Reddy learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Additional Advocate General perused the material available on record. 9 1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-institutions are established with the primary objective of providing educational facilities in the State of Telangana. The petitioners-institutions impart technical educatlon in Engineering and Technical courses and they are lutnce luvvad Sndev W.P.No! 17856 17859. 17863 17864 1?A66 17 860 a^d 17 812 al 2026 being annually granted approval by the AICTE and have received requisite affiliation from the respondent university The petitioners-institutions amongst the best and most preferred choice of students in the State of Telangana.

9.2. After the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the State of Telangana adopted the regulatory framework under G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 08 01 2007 through G.O Ms'No 26, dated 22.07.2015 On the same day, TAFRC was constituted vrde G O Rt No.160, dated 22 07 2015.

9.3. After due establishment of the petitioners-institutions, the respondent No 2-TAFRC fixed the fees for the courses offered by the petitioners-institutions in accordance with the prevailing regulatory framework.

9.4. For the block period of AY 2025-26 to A Y 2027-28, the respondent No.2-TAFRC issued a notification, dated 15.07.2024 inviting proposals for fees fixation After the submission of the proposals, a personal hearing was conducted and upon consideration of the material, the l2 l!st ce ruwad Sr dev' w.p Nos 17855 17859 17863 .7854 1/866 r7868 and 17e72at 20?6 respondent No.2-TAFRC initially determined the fees (as shown in the table). The following is the tabular form of fees structures proposed and determined. tWrrt No Petrtion Fee for block Proposed perod 2022- fee for Btock determ ined 25 (Rs ) Period 2025-2028 (Rs ) by AFRC for Block Period | 2025-2028 in earing (Rs h 17856 of 2026 17859 of 1026 17863 of 2026 17864 of 202 17866 of 202 17868 o'f 2026 17872 ol 2026 1 1,10!qq 1,65,000 95,000 2,00,000 1 15,000 1,75,000 _80.000 _ 120,000 75,000 1,50,000 I 10-0q! 2,Q0,0q0 1 05,000 1,60,000 ]-j J 1_2)0_00 ,75,000 1 1,55,000 1,'15,000 1,45,000 'J,4_5_ 0!q 1,45,000 d-- e Rs. Fee recommende and notified vid G.O.lVs No.6 dt.04 03.2026 for Block period 2025- 2 78,100 72,300 91,200 76,100 _ 70,000 99,800 79,700 l -l 9 5. However, respondent No.1 issued G O.lVs.No.26 dated 30 06 2025 continurng the earlier fee structure applicable to the previous block period for the academic year 2025_26. The said G O. was challenged before this Court in W P No 19955 of 2025 and batch By order, dated 1107 2025, this Court directed the respondent No 2-TAFRC to complete reconsideratton and determination of fees within six weeks. The said interim order was upheld in WA.No.74g of 2025 and l!!l'celuv!ad 5r'dev w P.Nos.17856 17E59, 17863 17664 11a66 l7aoa and 17872al2A26 I 6. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 issued G O Ms No.29, dated 25 07 2025 constituting a committee to revaluate the fee fixation criteria. Based on its recommendations, G.O.Ms No.33 dated 20.08.2025 was issued amending G O tt/s No 6 and introducing additional parameters for fee determination

9.7. While fresh personal hearings were conducted for engineering institutions under the amended framework introduced by G.O.Ms.No.33, another opportunity was afforded to the petitioners-institutions. But while taking decision of reducing or retaintng the same fees, no further opportunity of personal hearing was granted to these petitioners-institutions, in accordance with principles of natural justice. Even after filing applications under RTI Act seeking information in relation to the process by which the fees were fixed and the details of the fees determined for the petitioners-institutions, no information was provided explaining why the recommended fees were altered and on what basis or process the reduced/retained fees were arrived at. Based on these recommendations' the respondent l,l lust.e luvvadr Sr dev, w P No! 17856 17859 17863 17864 113AA. 17BOA and 1187 2 at 2A26 No '1 issued G O t\Is No 6, dated 04 032026 notifying the reduced/retained fee. Hence, these writ petitions are filed.

10.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the recommendations issued by the respondent No.2, dated 29 10.2025 and 31 10 2025, whereby the fees were reduced/retained as mentioned in the above table, are wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. He further submits that the said recommendations were rnade without recording any reasons, without arrivrng at any finding of profiteering and without undertaking an institution of specific assessment as mandated under the applicable regulatory framework He further submits that the impugned recommendations reflect complete non-application of mind, particularly in view of the earlier determination of fees after due consideration of the materral placed by the petitioners and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The subsequent reduction/retaining of fees, without any notice or opportunity of hearing, is in gross vrolation of the principles of natural justice l5 lunrce luwad Srrdevr w.P.N0317856. 17859. I7863 17864. 17866 17668 and 17872 o12026 10 2 ll is further submitted that once the proposals of the petitioners-institutions have been scrutinized in accordance with Rule 4 of the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006 and after TAFRC satisfied itself that the fees so determined did not involve any element of profiteering or capitation, the respondent No.2 was required in terms of the Rule 4(v), to communicate the said fee to the respondent No 1 for the purpose of notification, in such circumstances, the respondent No,2-TAFRC ought to have recommended the fees offered by the petitioners-institutions. However, the fees fixed by the respondent No.2-TAFRC is wholly arbitrary and unilateral manner, without any notice, reasons, or opportunity to the petitioners-institutions and the same is in clear violation of the statutory scheme contained in the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006.

10.3 lt is further submitted that in lslamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka' the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the principles laid down in T.M.A. Pai v. ' (2003) 6 scc 697 16 lJsl ce lJwad 5r de! w P Nos "7856 17859 17863 1786r' 17866 17868 ard 17872 al 2A25 State of Karnataka2, has categorically held that the right to determine the fee structure primarily vests with the educational institution and that the role of the Fee Regulatory Committee is only regulatory in nature. The Committee is only required to examine whether the proposed fee involves any element of profiteering or capitation fee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that there can be no rigrd fee structure imposed by the Government or the regulatory authority and that each instrtution must be permitted to determine its own fee structure having regard to its infrastructure, investments, operational costs, salaries, and developmental requirements, subject only to the limited scrutiny of the Committee to ensure that the fee does not amount to profiteering. Based on such recommendations, the Government issued G O.Ms.No.6 dated

04.032026 Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed to allow these writ petitions by setting aside the impugned proceedings 11 Learned Standing Counsel for TAFRC appearing for the respondent No.2, upon filing counters along with (2002 I SCC 481 t7 lust ce Juwadr SndevL w P Nos.17856 r7E59. 17E63 17864. 11866 17868 ard 17872 ot 2a26 working sheets/evaluation sheets and the recommendattons of the Committee, fairly submitted that the recommendations for reduction/retention of fees were made having regard to the material already available on record and in the light of the revised parameters introduced under the amended framework However, it was not disputed that no separate notice was issued, nor was any opportunity of personal hearing afforded to the petitioners-instttutions prior to effecting such substantial reduction or retention of fees He further submitted that, in the event the matters are remanded to the respondent No.2- TAFRC, and if the petitioners-institutions submit fresh applications along with their objections to the working sheets/evaluation sheets and the recommendations of the Committee, the respondent No 2-TAFRC would reconsider the matters afresh by duly affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners-institutions

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners-institutions fairly conceded to the said submission of the learned Standing Counsel and expressed no oblection for remanding the matters l8 rustr.e rLV!ad 5.roevl w.P.Nos 17856 17859 17863 17864 17866 17868 and 17872 ot Ze26 to TAFRC and they sought reasonable time to enable the petitioners-institutions to file fresh applications along with their detailed objections to the working sheets/evaluation sheets and the recommendations of the Commrttee However, they sought a consequential direction permitting the petitioners-institutions to collect the fees that was in existence prior to issuance of the impugned G O.. till the fees for the ensuing academic perrod is re-determined placlng reliance upon paragraph No g of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srusti Academy of Management v. The State of Odisha and others3 wherein it was held that "B Need/ess lo sfate that till the fees for the next academic sessron are redetermined, the appe ant(s) would continue to charge the fees which existed before passrng the impugnecl judgment and order.,'

13. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for TAFRC and perused the material available on record lt rs not in dispute that the impugned recommendations for reducing/retaining the fees were made on 'zo2a tusc gag l9 Ju5t!ce luvvadr 5r d€vr w P Nos 17856 17859 17863 17864 17866. 17868 and 17872 o12026 the basis of the material available on record and in the light of the revised parameters introduced under the amended framework, however, no notice was issued nor any oppoftunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioners prior to effecting such substantial reduction/retention of fees. Once a revised framework introducing additional parameters for fee determination was brought into force and particularly when the earlier fees had been determined after affording a personal hearing to the petitioners, any subsequent redetermination adversely affecting thetr interests ought to have been preceded by a fair opportunity of hearing along with material papers which are basis for such recommendations. The admitted absence of such opportunity vitiates the decision-making process.

14. Further, the material on record does not disclose any reasons or institution-specific assessment justifying the reduction/retention in fees ln the absence of reasons and adherence to the principles of natural justice, the impugned recommendations cannot be sustained 0 l!n .e luvvad Sr dev w P No! 17856 17850 17863 17864 17866 17808 anc t?872 lrt 2026 15 ln view of the foregoing discussion the impugne<j proceedings dated 29 10 2025 and 31.10.2025 issued by respondent No.2, and the consequential G.O.tVls.No.6, dated 04 03 2026 issued by respondent No 1, are hereby set aside, insofar as they relate to the petitioners-institutions herein The petitioner-institutions are granted liberty to make an application seeking supply of the worksheets, and upon receipt of the same, they shall file their ob.lections before respondent No.2- TAFRC within one week. Upon receipt of such objections, respondent No 2-TAFRC shall issue notice to the petitioner institutions. afford them an opportunity of personal hearing, and thereafter reconsider the matter afresh Respondent No.2- TAFRC shall pass appropnate orders as expeditiously AS possible, preferably within a period of three weeks, in accordance with law and the applicable Government Orders, and communicate the same to the petitioner institutions. Till such re-determination of fees is completed, the petitioners- rnstitutions are permitted to collect the fees that was in force prior to issuance of G.O Ms.No 6, dated 04 03 2026, subject to 2t tun ce tuvvadrSfidFv w P N0i.17856 17859 17863 17864 l7866. 17868 and 17872at 2A26 the final fixation of fees by respondent No.2_TAFRC. There shall be no order as to costs.

16. With the above directions, these Writ petitions are disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Depa t, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Member Secretary, Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, 2nd Floor, JNA and FAU Campus, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, lVahaveer tt/arg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

3. The Secretary, Telangana State Council for Higher Education, 1st Floor, JNTU IVIasab Tank Campus, [\ilahaveer N/arg, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

4. The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. 5. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2026, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500 028.

6. One CC to SRI TARUN G.REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI G.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, SC FOR TAFRC [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR JNTUH [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI A.P.SURESH RAM, SC FOR TSCHE [OPUC] 1O.Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

11.Two CCs to ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

12.Two CD Copies B GJP o HIGH COURT DATED: 1210612026 CC TODAY sn" ) e S IAT€ o 1 q q o o i).., 1 6 jllil fi?B ,-: , ,.,.| :tl COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.17856, 17859, 17863, 17864, 17866, 17868 and 17872of2026 DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITION'S, WITHOUT COSTS 9t \b