1. Challenge to fee reduction by a regulatory committee and government notification issued without providing the affected institutions an opportunity to be heard. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Srusti Academy Of Management – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13711 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 21782 of 2023) With Civil Appeal No. 13712 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s) No. 21921 of 2023), Civil Appeal No. 13713 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21892/2023), Civil Appeal No. 13714 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22096/2023), Civil Appeal No. 13715 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1663 of 2024)
Decided On : 03-12-2024
Important Points
The court emphasized that any order causing adverse civil consequences must adhere to natural justice principles, including the right to a hearing.
Subject
Administrative Law - Natural Justice
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission & Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007 - Sections 6 and 7 - Fee structure determination - Appeals against the High Court's orders upholding the Fee Structure Committee's recommendation and State Government's notification - Revision of fees without hearing the appellant(s) violates principles of natural justice - Appeals allowed, impugned orders quashed. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appeals challenge the judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Orissa, which upheld the Fee Structure Committee's recommendation to reduce fees without giving the appellant(s) an opportunity to be heard.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the revision of fees was made without adherence to natural justice principles, necessitating the quashing of the impugned orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Fee Structure Committee could revise fees without a hearing, which is a violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that any order with adverse civil consequences must adhere to natural justice, including providing a hearing to affected parties.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Facts of the case:
The appeals challenge the judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Orissa, which upheld the Fee Structure Committee's recommendation to reduce fees without giving the appellant(s) an opportunity to be heard.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the revision of fees was made without adherence to natural justice principles, necessitating the quashing of the impugned orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Fee Structure Committee could revise fees without a hearing, which is a violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that any order with adverse civil consequences must adhere to natural justice, including providing a hearing to affected parties.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok K. Parija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khanna, AOR, Mr. Amritesh Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Natasha Sahrawat, Adv. Ms. Deepali Bhanot, Adv., Mr. Rudraksh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Adv. Ms. Alisha Roy, Adv., Mr. Sunil J Mathews, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rani, Adv., Mr. Samanwaya Rautrey, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
For the Respondent:Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR Ms. Shivangi Gupta, Adv., Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, AOR Mr. Navneet Dogra, Adv., Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR, Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. Debasis Jena, Adv., Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv., Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Sr. Adv, Advocate General Ms. Samapika Biswal, AOR, Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok K. Parija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khanna, AOR, Mr. Amritesh Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Natasha Sahrawat, Adv. Ms. Deepali Bhanot, Adv., Mr. Rudraksh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Adv. Ms. Alisha Roy, Adv., Mr. Sunil J Mathews, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rani, Adv., Mr. Samanwaya Rautrey, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
For the Respondent:Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR Ms. Shivangi Gupta, Adv., Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, AOR Mr. Navneet Dogra, Adv., Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR, Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. Debasis Jena, Adv., Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv., Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Sr. Adv, Advocate General Ms. Samapika Biswal, AOR, Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Contention that the reduction of fees without a prior hearing violates the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. (Para 4 )
3. Orders causing adverse civil consequences must follow principles of natural justice, especially where statutory provisions explicitly mandate a hearing before revision. (Para 5 )
4. Orders inviting adverse civil consequences cannot be passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice and relevant statutory requirements for a hearing. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals allowed; impugned High Court judgment, committee recommendation, and government notification quashed; previous fees to continue until redetermination. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. Does a fee revision by a regulatory committee require a hearing?
Yes, any order that results in adverse civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, if the relevant statutory provision specifically requires a hearing before a revision is made, such a hearing must be provided. (Para 5 )
7. What happens to the fee structure when a revision order is quashed?
Until the fees for the next academic session are redetermined following the prescribed legal procedure, the institutions may continue to charge the fees that existed prior to the impugned order. (Para 8 )
8. How should the fee structure be determined for future academic sessions after a quashed order?
The Fee Structure Committee and State Government must determine the fee structure by following the procedure set out under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission & Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
B.R.GAVAI, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals challenge the judgment and orders dated 10.07.2023 and 06.07.2023 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, thereby the Division Bench of the High Court has upheld the recommendation dated 07.12.2022 of the Fee Structure Committee and the Notification dated 30.12.2022 issued by the State Government.
3. The perusal of the record would reveal that respondent-Fee Structure Committee had reduced the fees that the appellant(s) could charge to the students.
4. Indisputably, the said revision was made without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant(s).
5. It is a settled principle of law that any order inviting adverse civil consequences cannot be passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice. In any case, the relevant provision itself requires a hearing to be given to the institution(s) before a revision is made.
6. On this short ground, the appeals deserve to be allowed. The impugned judgment and orders dated 10.07.2023 and 06.07.2023 passed by the High Court and recommendation dated 07.12.2022 of the respondent-Fee Structure Committee and the Notification dated 30.12.2022 issued by the State government are quashed and set aside.
7. We clarify that for the next academic session, the respondent-Fee Structure Committee as well as State Government would determine the fee structure by following the procedure as set out under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission & Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007 and the law laid down by this Court.
8. Needless to state that till the fees for the next academic session are redetermined, the appellant(s) would continue to charge the fees which existed before passing the impugned judgment and order.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
