SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Cal) 402

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.
Gourab Kumar Sadhu & Ors. Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 13054 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 With CAN 2 of 2024 With CAN 3 of 2025 With WPA 26400 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2025 With WPA 3028 of 2024 With CAN 3 of 2024 With CAN 5 of 2025 
Decided On : 15-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sarwar Jahan, Mr. Shmim-ul-Bari.
For the State (in WPA 13054 of 2024 & WPA 26400 of 2024) : Mr. Swapan Kr. Datta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajat Dutta, Mr. Dipankar Dasgupta.
For the State (in WPA 3028 of 2024) : Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Tapati Samanta.
For the Respondent nos. 13 to 15: Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Mr. Chhandak
For the B.C. Roy Engineering College : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Ms. Rama Halder, Ms. Eshita Mondal.
For M.A.K.A.U.T. University : Ms. Nandini Mitra, Mr. Sakya Maity, Mr. S. Banerjee.

Court upheld the government's authority to revise fee structures mid-course in self-financing institutions based on regulations, as long as such changes were communicated at admission time, dismissing claims of contractual violation.

Headnote:(A) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Sections 10(j), 10(o), and 23 - Enhancement of fees in self-financing institutions - Notification by State Government revising fee structure challenged - The petitioners contended that mid-course fee escalation violates the regulatory framework requiring consistency in fee structures - The respondents argued the necessity for fee revision due to operational costs and previous accountability to maintain standards. (Paras 1-20)

(B) Regulatory Framework for Fees - Regulation 7 of AICTE Regulations 1994 mandates that fees be fixed for a minimum of three years - The necessity for adherence to mandated consultation and notification processes highlighted by petitioners - The Court examined whether the authorities had the right to alter fees once enrolled. (Paras 33-54)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the legality of a notification that increased the fees for B.Tech. students mid-course, which they claimed violated a prior fee structure they relied upon when enrolling, leading to financial implications, including loans obtained based on the old fee structure. (Paras 1-10)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the fee structure was permissible to change under the conditions laid out in the prospectus and the State notification, deeming it consistent with the statutory provisions governing fee additions for self-financing institutions. (Paras 33-55)

Issues: Whether the notification dated 16.10.2023 is legally sustainable for students already registered and if its retroactive application violates existing contracts upon which students based their admissions. (Paras 33-53)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the fee structure could indeed be altered mid-course given proper notification was issued by the authorities, thus overruling the petitioners’ claims of unfair treatment under the previous fee regime. (Paras 34-41)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. legal basis of fee structure and notification (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments on fee revision authority and historical context (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. petitioners' arguments against mid-course fee enhancement (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
4. judicial analysis of notification applicability (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
5. legal implications of the fee adjustment (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
6. final judgment and dismissal of petitions (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

Preface:

1. For the sake of thematic coherence, all three writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. The aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by a group of students presently pursuing the four-year B.Tech. Programme (Batch 2023–2027) at Dr. B.C. Engineering College, Durgapur, Paschim Burdwan, calling into question the legality and justifiability of Notification No. 466-Edn(T)/10M- 04/2004 (Part-IV) dated 16.10.2023 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Higher Education, whereby a mid- course enhancement of fees was directed. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the said notification dated 16.10.2023. In addition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the college authorities to withdraw and/or cancel the revised fee structure appearing at Annexure-P-4 to the writ petition and to accept fees in accordance with the earlier fee structure as reflected in Annexure-P-2 to the writ petition.

Petitioners’ case:

2. Before entering into the merits of the issues involved in the present writ petition, it would be apposite to briefly advert to the facts leading to its institution.

3. In or about August 2023, the petitioners secured admission to the four-year B.Tech. undergraduate course in different departments of Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur, a self-financing engineering institution affiliated to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology (for short, MAKAUT) and approved by the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi (respondent no. 5 herein), as well as by the Department of Higher Education, Government of West Bengal, through the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination (in short, WBJEE) and Joint Entrance Examination-Main ( in short, JEE-Main), conducted by National Testing Agency (in short, NTA) in 2023.

4. At the time of admission, the respondent college communicated a definitive and uniform fee structure, which was accepted by the petitioners as governing the financial terms of their academic engagement. Relying upon the aforesaid representation, the petitioners completed their admission formalities. Several petitioners, acting on the disclosed fee structure, applied for and obtained educational loans from various nationalised and private banking institutions, which were sanctioned strictly on the basis of the fee structure communicated by the respondent college.

5. In October 2023, the petitioners duly completed their registration. Upon such registration, the petitioners’ admissions stood formally confirmed, and the statutory window for withdrawal from, or migration to, any other institution for the relevant academic session stood closed.

6. Subsequent thereto, on 16th October, 2023, the Department of Higher Education, Government of West Bengal, issued Notification No. 466-Edn- (T)/10M-04/2004 (Part IV), whereby the upper fee ceiling for self-financing engineering colleges in the State was revised upwards, ostensibly to address increased operational and infrastructural costs.

7. In November 2023, after completion of the MAKAUT registration process, the respondent college authorities (respondent nos. 10–12), placing reliance on the aforesaid notification, issued a revised fee demand upon the petitioners with effect from the second semest

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top