Heritage Institute of Hotel and Tourism Vs Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission and Ors.

petitioner submitted that petitioner’s prayer in this writ petition at this stage be treated to be confined only to the first direction issued in the aforesaid order. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage confined to petitioner’s prayer qua the first direction in the impugned order which reads as under:-

¶24

“That the respondent college is doing business in the name of education and charging fee as per their own convenience from the students without getting it approved from the competent authority which is violation of the admission norms for which penalty amount of Rs.25.00 lakh is imposed upon the respondent college which shall be deposited in the Bank account of HP-PERC within 30 days from the issuance of these orders.”

¶25

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶26

4. Respondent No.1 on coming to conclusion that the petitioner has been charging fee as per its own convenience from the students without getting it approved from the Competent Authority thereby violated admission norms and for this reason, penalty of ₹25.00lakhs was imposed upon the petitioner college.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the imposition of penalty and quantification of penalty at ₹25.00 lakhs is not only excessive in the given facts but also without any reasons and justification. It is not clear

¶28

3

¶29

as to why ₹25.00 lakhs has been quantified as penalty imposed upon the petitioner. I have considered the impugned order which does not reflect any reasons for quantification of penalty imposed upon the petitioner at ₹25.00 lakhs. Though respondents had tried to justify the quantification of penalty at ₹25.00 lakhs in their reply filed to the writ petition, however, the reasons are required to be reflected in the order whereunder the penalty was imposed.

¶30

4. For the aforesaid reason, the first direction (extracted above) in the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 is set-aside. The respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of imposition of penalty upon the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by assigning reasons in support of such order. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶31

May 15, 2026 yogesh

¶32

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Heritage Institute of Hotel and Tourism v. Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heritage Institute of Hotel and Tourism v. Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gejam Ram Vs J C Sharma

Roshani Thakur and Ors. Vs Sudha Devi and Ors.

Ajay Pal Singh and Another Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Puran Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Sahil Mahajan Vs State of Hp and Others

Brij Bhushan Banshtu Vs the State of Hp and Others