Dismissed

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jul 2025WA/766/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a batch of writ appeals challenging a single judge order that refused interim relief in fee-fixation writ petitions, holding the order lacked finality and merits for appellate interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society Vs State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

13447l

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA}

¶7

WRIT APPEA^{L Nos.749} 753 754 758^{759763764765&766 of 2025}

¶8

WRIT APPEAL^{NO: 749 OF 2025}

¶9

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentpreferredagainsttheorderdated 11-07-2025inl.A.No'3&4of2025inW.P.No.20004of2025&batchonthefileof the High Court

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/s Roval Educational^SocietY' Gowdavelli Villaqe,^{Medchal tvlandal,} Ranqarebdy. Hyderabad,⁵⁰¹⁴⁰¹ Represented^{by ita AuthorisedSignatory} Aruila Prashanth

¶12

Hvderabad^lnstitute of Technoloqv and^{fi/anagement,Gandimaisamma} I/l)dchal CheckPost Road, Basuiigadi^{Village. Hy{erabad} .^Ielangana- 501401. RePresented by its Authorised^{Signatory Arutla Prashanth}

¶13

...APPELLANTS/WRIT^PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

'l The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal^{Secretary'Higher} Education Department,^{SecretariatHyderabad'}

¶16

Telanqana Admissron^{and FeeRegulatory-} -Committee'^{2nd Floor' JNAand} ' ixu"t;;;;;,"'"d;; rr,r-rnrrn uotpitit''r\Iahaveer Mars' Masab rank' Hyderabad'Represbhted^{by its Member Secretary'}

¶17

3-Convenor'TGEAPCET2025'JNTUHUCESTH'KukatpallyHyderabad500085

¶18

Telanqana state^{council for Higher Education-1'r Floor.JNTUl\ilasab Tank} - a;;;1: b;;'"tt/;i;;i;"tl;;piii, rvrJn*Ar Nlarg, Masab^'rank' Hvderabad Represented bY its^Secretary'

¶19

Jawaharlal Nehru^{Technological University, Hyderabad Representedby its} Registrar.

...RESPONDENTS

)

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the Highcourt may be pleased to} suspend the operation of the^{lmpugnedOrder dated1 1-07 2025 in WP No'} 2OOO4 ol 2025 disposing off the^{lnterlocutoryApplications being lA No.1 of 2025,} lA No.3 of 2025 and lA No.⁴ of^{2025 in WP No. 20004 of 2025 by holding that} the Writ Petitioners^{(Appellant herein) are not entitledto interim relief.}

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section¹ 51 CPC Pr:aying^{that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High court may be pleased to} direct the Respondents to^{permit the Appellant lnstitutionto collect the fee of Rs.} 1,45,OOOI- per student^per annum for the^{B.Tech courseas approvedand} accepted by the Respondent^{No.2 for the block period of 2025-2025to 2027-} 2028 without reference to the G^{o.lvlsNo 26 dated 30.06.2025including but not} limited to directing the Respondent^No.3 to^{include a notification on the} TGEAPCET Website to notify^{the students throughcounselling as regards the} collectable fee of Rs.^'1 ,45,0001per^{student per annum for the Appellant} lnstitution in the block^period of 2025-2026^{Io 2027-2028in respectof the B.Tech} course

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SIRGAPOOR^{SAHIL REDDY}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:^{SRI S. RAHUL REDDY,} SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER^REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No-2: SRI^{P. SRI RAGHU RAM, SENIOR COUNSEL} REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA^SEKHARREDDY, STANDING COUNSEL

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to^{5: SRIPERIPRABHAKAR,} STANDING COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING^COUNSEL

¶30

¶31

WRIT APPEAL NO: 753 OF 2025

¶32

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters^{Patent preferred againstthe Order dated} 11.O7.2025in1.A.No.1 and2of2025inW.P,No.'19935of2025onthefileof^theHigh Court.

¶33

Between:

¶34

Yadala Satyanarayana Memorial Educational^Society, l?ritlg^{its office€t #} 204, Rahmin Pla2a, ll Floor, Near^{Taj tvlahalHotel,Abids, Hyderabad Rep.} by its Secretary Mr. Y V Gopala^{Krishna Murthy}

¶35

ACE Enoineerinq Colleqe, Sv. No.^{175 and 181, Ankushapur (V) Ghatkesar} 1M),^{RarigaredOioistridt Re[ by its Secretary Mr. Mr. Y V GopalaKrishna} Murthy

¶36

Mr Y V Gopala Krishna Murthy,^{S/o Late Subba Rao, Aged,about62 years,} R/o ACE Engineering Colleg6,^{Sy. No. 175 and 181, Ankushapur(V),} Ghatkesar^(l\t!), Rangareddy District.

¶37

...APPELLANTS/wRIT PETITIONERS

¶38

AND

¶39

'1 . State of Telangana, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, .^{Hyderabad,Rep.by its Principal Secretary.}

¶40

Telanqana Admission and^{Fee Regulatory Committee,2nd Floor,JNAand} FAU^"Campus, Opp. Mahavir Hospital,^{' Mahaveer Marg,ltilasab Tank,} Hyderabad. Rep. by its Member^Secretary.

¶41

Telangana State Council^{for Higher Education'1't Floor, JNTUtvlasabTank} Camp"us, N4ahaveer l\ilarg, Opp.^{Mahavir Hospital, MasabTank, Hyderabad'} Represented by its SecretarY.

¶42

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological^{University, Hyderabad.Rep. by its Registrar'}

¶43

The Convenor. TG EAPCET^{2025, Sankethika VidyaBhavanlrilasab Tank} Hvderabad - 500 028.

¶44

...RES'.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS

¶45

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶46

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} direct the Respondents to^{permit the Petitioner lnstitutionto collect the fee of Rs.} 1,30,000/- per annum for the B.Tech^{coursefor the block periodof AY 2025-26} lo 2027 -28 including by suspending^{the effect and operationof G'O' Ms No 26} dated 30.06.2025 issued by^{RespondentNo. 1 and the order dated 1 1.o7 .2025} passed by the Learned Single Judge^{in lA No. 1 and 2 of 2025 in WP No '19935} of 2025 pending disposal of the^{above Writ Appeal.}

¶47

¶48

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶49

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaybepleasedto direct Respondent^{No 5 to update and reflect'in respect of the Petitioner} lnstitution, the^{fee of Rs. 1,30,000/- per annum for the B'Tech course' for the} blockperiodofA.Y.2025-26toA.Y,2027-2B.ontheofficialportal/websrteofTG EAPCET 2025^{pending disposalof the aboveWrit Appeal}

¶50

Counsel for^{the Appellants:SRI TARUNG' REDDY}

¶51

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'1: SRI S' RAHUL REDDY'} . SPECIAL GOVERNMENT^{PLEADER REPRESENTING} ADDITIONAL^{ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶52

Counsel for^{the Respondent No.2: SRI P' SRI RAGHURAM'SENIOR COUNSEL} REPRESENTING^{SRIG. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY,} STANDING^COUNSEL

¶53

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'3 to 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR'}

¶54

STANDING^COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH^{KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL}

¶55

WRIT APPEA^{LNO:754 OF 2025}

¶56

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentPreferredagainsttheorderdated 11-07-2o25inl.A.No.1&2oI2025inWPNo'lgg5Tof2025onthefileoftheHigh Court

¶57

Between:

¶58

Guru Nanak^{Educational Soclety, Havingits officeat 82 2ndFloor'^Above} Bata. Vikarmpuri^{colony,'X;rkli,;'"S;cJnderabadRep by its General} Secretary Mr.'Gagandeep^SinghKohli'

¶59

2 Virlis",'Ibilhirp-it*.'-ni.Jgi"dJv Guru Nanak^{lnstitutions Technical Campus, tr/anchal nep bv its Secretary Mandal' tilr GagandeepKhanapur} Singh Kohli.

¶60

J Mr. Gaqandeep^{SinghKohh, S/o Late TavinderSingh Kohli' Aged about 43} ;J";^{Hki ;:#-aaii] sijff Rb; Rocx rand Karkhana secunderabad}

¶61

...APPELLANTS/WRIT^PETITIONERS

¶62

AND

¶63

TheStateofTelangana,HigherEducationDepartment,secretariatBuildings, Hyderabad. Rep.^{by its Principal Secretary'}

¶64

¶65

Telangana^{Admissionand FeeRegulatory.Committee'2nd Floor'JNA- and} FAU camous opp iirnaun^{notp'tii, 'MahaveerMarg' Masab[ank'} Hyderabad. Rep.^{by its Member Secretary'}

¶66

Telanqana State^{Councilfor Higher Education'1'' Floor' JNTUMasab Tank} " c"rfi;'r:,''fu;i,;;";;"til;;b:-oppl Na'na'i' Hospital' Masab^{rank'Hvderabad} Represented^{bY its Secretary.}

¶67

Jawaharlal^{NehruTechnological University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar-}

¶68

The Convenor,^{TG EAPCET 2025, Sankethika VidyaBhavan MasabTank} Hyderabad - 500 028.

¶69

...RESP.NDENTS/RESP.NDENTS

¶70

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶71

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto direct} RespondentNo'5toupdateandreflect'inrespectofthePetitionerlnstitution,the fee of Rs.^{1,51,0O0/- per annum for the B Techcourse' for the block period of A Y-} 2025-26 to A.Y.^{2027-28. on the officialportal/website of TG EAPCEI2025} pending disposal of^{the aboveWrit Appeal'}

¶72

IAN O:2OF^2O25

¶73

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatrnthecircumstancesstatedtn the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto direct} theRespondentstopermitthePetitionerlnstitutionstocollectthefeeofRs. 1,51,000/-^{per annumfor the B Tech course' Rs g0'000i-per annumfor the} M.Tech course,^{Rs 79,000/-per annum for the MBACourse' Rs 1'45'0001per} annurn for the^{B. Pharmacourse, Rs. 1,.10,0001perannumfor the course of M} Pharmacy and^{Rs. 1,54,000/- for the course of Pharma D for the block periodof} A.Y.2025-26 lo^{2027 -28 including by suspendingthe effect and operation of G O'} Ms. No. 26 dated^{30.062025 issuedby RespondentNo 1 and the order dated} 11.07.2025^{passed by the Learned Single Judge in lA No 1 and2 of 2025 in WP} No.¹ 9957 of^{2025 pendingdisposal of the above Writ Appeal'}

¶74

Counsel for^{the Appellants:SRI TARUNG' REDDY}

¶75

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'1: SRIS' RAHUL REDDY'} SPECIAL GOVERNMENT^{PLEADER REPRESENTING} ADDITIONAL^{ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶76

¶77

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2: SRI P. SRI RAGHURAM'SENIOR COUNSEL} REPRESENTING^{SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHARREDDY'} STANDING COUNSEL

¶78

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.3 to 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR'} STANDING COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH^{KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL}

¶79

WRIT APPE^{AL NO: 758 OF 2025}

¶80

writ Appeal under^{clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Againstthe orderDated} 11.o7.2025inl.A.No',1&2of2025inW.P,No.20O02of2025onthefileoftheHigh Court

¶81

Between:

¶82

1 Viqnana Jvothi^{Society, VNR VJIET Camp.us,} ,Gandimaisamma-!4yqqyr Hi[ii;;;^{"h-oao,--eJihupaltv,Niledchal'tvl;lkajslri District500090} iidprei6nteU by^{iis Generai Secretary Kode Durga Prasad'}

¶83

2 VNR Vionana Jvothi lnstitute^{of Engineeringand Technolo-g-y-} -Vignana^'lyothi Naoar. Praqathi Naqar,^{Nizampet (S.O) Hyderabad5UUUgu F(epresenleo} by its Autho-rised^{Sighatory Arutla Prashanth}

¶84

...APPELLANTS

¶85

AND

¶86

1 The State of Telangana,^{Representedby its Principal Secretary'Higher} Education Department.^{Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶87

2 Telanoana Admission and^{FeeRegulatory Committee,2nd Flo-or' JNAand} ixu"'c;;;;;. oop. Minrvii^{Ho"spital,' vlahaveerI/arg, Masab Tank'} Hyderabad Represbhted^{by its Member Secretary'}

¶88

Convenor, TGEAPCET 2025,^{JNTUH UCESTH, KukatpallyHyderabad} 500085.

¶89

4 Telanoana State Council^{for Higher Education. 1'' Floot. JNTUt\ilasab Tank} i;;;1; b;;^{'irr"r,rriino.pita"l, MahaveerlVlarg' MasabTank' Hvderabad} Represented by^its Secretary.

¶90

E Jawaharlal Nehru^{Technological University, Hyderabad Representedby its} Registrar' ...RESP.NDENTS

¶91

...RESP.NDENTS

¶92

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶93

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{an supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} suspendtheoperationofthelmpugnedorderdatedlltoTl2o25inWPNo.20002 ot 2O25 disposing off^{the lnterlocutoryApplication being lA No.2 of 2025 in WP}

¶94

¶95

No 20002 of 2025^{by holding that the writ Petitioners (Appellant herein)are not} entitled to interrm^relief

¶96

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶97

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to direct} the Respondents to^{permit the Appellantlnstitution to collect the fee of Rs.} 2,IO,OOOI-^{per studentper annum for the B Techcourseas approved and} acceptedbytheRespondentNo.2fortheblockperiodof2025-20251o2027-2028 without reference to^{the G.O. Ms No. 26 dated3oto6t2o25including but not limited} to directing the^{Respondent No 3 to includea notificationon the TGEAPCET} website to notify the^{students throughcounselling as regards the collectable fee} ofRs.2,20,000i-perstudentperannumfortheAppellantlnstitutionintheblock period of 2025-2026 to 2027-2028^{in respect of the B Tech course'}

¶98

Counsel for the^{Appellants:SRI AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL} REPRESENTING^{SRI M. PRANAV}

¶99

Counsel for the Respondent^{No'1: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY,} SPECIAL GOVERNMENT^{PLEADER REPRESENTING} ADDITIONAL^{ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶100

CounselfortheRespondentNo.2:SRIP'SRIRAGHURAM'SENIORCOUNSEL REPRESENTING^{SRIG. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY,} STANDING^COUNSEL

¶101

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3 to 5: SRIPERI PRABHAKAR'} STANDING COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH^{KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL}

¶102

WRIT APPEAL^{NO759 0F 2025}

¶103

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentAppeatPreferredAgainstorder Dated11.o7.2025l.A'No.1&2of2025inW'P.No.19999of2025onthefileofthe High Court.

¶104

Between:

¶105

1 Gunamaoalli Pulla^{Reddy Charities Trust'H No. 6-3-879/13' Green Lands} H;;;: ?i"rffip"f irviEirnro^{sooolo' Represented bY its authorised} ;iil;i",y 6 S,iloy,^{rt"oovwloP. Ravi Kanth Reddv, aged about43 vears}

¶106

¶107

G. Narayanamma lnstitute of^{Technology and Science (for women)'} Autonom6us, Shaikpet, Hyderabad -^{5001 04. Representedby its authorised} signatory G. Srividya Redciy^{Wo. P. Ravi Kanth Reddy, aged about 43 years.}

¶108

...APPELLANTS

¶109

AND

¶110

1 The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Principal Secretary,Higher} Education Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶111

Z Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory^{Committee,2nd Floor, JNAand} FAU tampus, Opp. Mahavir Hospital,^{' fVlahaveer N4arg, ItrlasabTank,} Hyderabad Represented by its lt/lember^Secretary

¶112

3 Convenor, TGEAPCET 2025, JNTUH^{UCESTH, Kukatpally Hyderabad-} 500085.

¶113

4 Telangana State Council for Higher Education,^{1st Floor,JNTUMasab Tank} Camp"us, Opp. Mahavir Hospitil,^{Mahaveer fVlarg, tvlasab Tank' Hyderabad} Represented by its Secretary.

¶114

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University,^{Hyderabad Representedby its} Registrar

¶115

..RESPONDENTS

¶116

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶117

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the lmpugned^{Order dated'l 1.O7 2025 in W.P.No.19999} of 2025 disposing off the lnterlocutory^{Application being lA No.2 of 2025in WP} No. 19999 of 2025 by holding that^{the writ Petitioners(Appellant herein)are not} entitled to interim relief^.

¶118

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶119

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court maybe pleased to direct} the Respondents to^permit the^{Appellant lnstitutionto collect the fee of Rs'} 1,95,000/- per student per annum for the^{B.Tech courseas approved and} accepted by the Respondent No.2^{for the blockperiod of 2025-2025 lo 2027-2028} without reference to the G.o.il/ls^{No. 26 dated 30.06.2025 including but not limited} to directing the Respondent No.3 to^{includea notificationon the TGEAPCET} Website to notify the students through^{Counsellingas regards the collectable fee}

¶120

¶121

of Rs. 1,95,000/-^{per studentper annumfor the Appellant lnstitution in the block} period of 2025-2026 lo 2027 -2028^{in respect of the B Tech course'}

¶122

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRI AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL} REPRESENTING SRI^{M. PRANAV}

¶123

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY,} S-PECII GOVERNMENT^{PLEADER REPRESENTING} ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE^GENERAL

¶124

CounselfortheRespondentNo.2:SRIP.SRIRAGHURAM,SENIORCOUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI^{G. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY,} STANDING^COUNSEL

¶125

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3 to 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR'}

¶126

STANDING^COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR,^{STANDING COUNSEL}

¶127

WRIT APPEAL^{NO: 763 OF 2025}

¶128

writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Againstthe orderDated} 11.07 .2025 in l.A.Nos.1^{& 2 ot 2025 in w.P.No19956 of 2025on the file of the High} Court

¶129

Between:

¶130

.l Gokaraiu Ranoa Raiu Educational society, Having its registered office at 40iS-l+,^'Brindaian Ci:lony^{Vijayawada AP 520010 Rep by rts Admrnrslralrve} Officer Mr. P AYub^Khan

¶131

Gokaraiu Rangaraju^{lnstitute of Engineeringand. Technology'Bachupally'} - [r"r|ijl}v, il,i"irbio Cep UV its Adfrrinistratrve Officer A/r. P Ayub Khan 3 tr/lr. P Avub Khan. s/o^{Khasim Kham, Aged about61.} .years,^{R/o Gokaraju} " [rirrrrtiii Engin;"iing College, Bachupally-, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

¶132

...APPELLANTS/WRIT^PETITIONERS

¶133

AND

¶134

1 State of Telangana,^{Higher Education Department,Secretariat Buildings'} Hyderabad, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary}

¶135

2 Telanoana Admission^{and Fee Regulatory Committee2nd Floor' JNAand} ix'fi t;ffi:,"'"<ipii^{rr,trr'l;iinoiprtat,'l\4ahaveer ltilarg,IVlasabTank'} Hyderabad. Rep. by^{its lvlemberSecretary'}

¶136

J Tetanoana State Council^{for Higher Education, 1't Floor' JNTUMasab Tank} c;fi ;'rt i,;i;;";il;;s : bpp"^{Itrla havir Hosprtal,Masab ra nk' Hvderabad'} Represented by its Secretary'

¶137

4 Jawaharlal Nehru^{Technological University, HyderabadRep by its Registrar'}

¶138

¶139

The Convenor,^{TG EAPCET 2025'SankethikaVidyaBhavan MasabTank} Hyderabad^{- 500 028.}

¶140

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶141

IA NO :1 OF²⁰²⁵

¶142

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedtn} the affidavit^{fired in support of the petition,the High court may be preased to direct} RespondentNo.5toupdateandreflect,inrespectofthePetitionerlnstitution.the fee of Rs.^{1,80,000/-per annum for the B Tech course' for the block period of A Y} 2025-26 to^{A.Y. 2027-28,on the offrcial portal/websiteof TG EAPCEI2025} pending disposal^{of the above Writ Appeal'}

¶143

IA NO:2OF^2O25

¶144

Petition under^{Section'151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the"petition' the High Courtmay be pleased to} permit the Petitioner^{lnstitutionto collect the fee of Rs' 1'80'0001 per annum for} the B.Tech^{course for the block periodof AY 2025-26 to 2027 -28 including by} suspending^{the effect and operation of G O Ms No 26 dated30 06 2025issued} by Respondent^{No. 1 and the orderdated 11 07 2025 passedby the Learned} Single Judge^{in l.A. No. 1 and 2 of 2025 in WP No 19956 of 2025pending} disposal of^{the aboveWrit APPeal'}

¶145

Counsel^{for the Appellants: SRI TARUNG' REDDY}

¶146

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'1:SRI S' RAHU-LREDDY'} SPECI;T^{GOVERNMENTPLEADER REPRESENTING} ADDITIONAL^{ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶147

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2:SRI P' SRI RAGHURAM'SENIOR COUNSEL} NEPNiSLNTITG^{SRI G. CHANDRASEKHARREDDY,} STANDING^COUNSEL

¶148

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'3 to 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR'} STANDING^COUNSEL SRI A.P.^{SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL}

¶149

¶150

WRIT APPEAL NO: 764 OF 2025

¶151

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against^{the order dated} 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.'l & 2 of 2025 in W.P.No.19941 of 2025 on the file of the^High Court.

¶152

Between:

¶153

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society,^{Having its office at 3-2-849} ' Station Road, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. Rep. by^{its Secretary[t/lr. Neil Gogte}

¶154

Neil Gogte lnstitute of Technology, Sy.^{No, 35, Kachvani Singaram Village,} Uppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy - 500088^{Rep. by its SecretaryMr.} Neil Gogte

¶155

Mr. Neil Gogte, S/o Late BS Gogte,^{Aged about 62 years, R/o 3-2'849} ' Station Road, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

¶156

...APPELLANTS/wRIT PETITIONERS

¶157

AND

¶158

1 State of Telangana, Higher Education Department,^{SecretariatBuildings,} Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶159

a Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory^{Committee,2"d Floor, JNA&FAU} Camp-us, Opp. Mahavir Hospital,^{lrr'lahaveerMarg. A/lasab Tank, Hyderabad-} Rep- by its Member Secretary-

¶160

1 Telangana State Council for Higher Education,^{1't Floor, JNTU Masab Tank} Camp-us, [vlahaveer lVlarg, Opp. Mahavir^{Hospital, Itrlasab Tank, Hyderabad.} Represented by its Secretary.

¶161

4 Osmania University, Hyderabad. Rep. by^{its Registrar.} The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2025, Sankethika^{Vidya Bhavan MasabTank} Hyderabad - 500 028.

¶162

,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶163

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶164

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} Respondent No. 5 to update and reflect,^{in respect of the Petitioner lnstitution,the} fee of Rs. 1,50,000/-^per annum for the^{B.Techcourse, for the block period of A.Y'} 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28, on the^{official portal/website of TG EAPCET2025} pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶165

¶166

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶167

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 the fee of Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of A.Y 2025-26 to 2027 -28 including by suspending the effect and operation of G.O. Ms No.26 dated 30,06.2025 issued by Respondent No 1 and the order dated 16.07 2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in lA No 1 and 2 of 2025 in WP No. 19941 of 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶168

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI TARUN G. REDDY

¶169

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶170

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. SRI RAGHU RAM, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL

¶171

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR, STANDING COUNSEL

¶172

SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL

¶173

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M. SRINIVAS REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL

¶174

WRIT APPEAL NO: 765 OF 2025

¶175

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 1 1.07.2025 in l.A No.'l & 2 of 2025 in W P.No.1 9942 of 2025 on the file of the High Court.

¶176

Between:

¶177

1 Gokaraju Ranga Raju Educational Society, Having its registered office at 4015-14, Brindavan Colony Vijayawada AP 520010 Rep. by its Administrative Officer lt/lr. P Ayub Khan

¶178

2 Qokaraju Lailavathi Engineering College, Bachupally, Kukatpally, Hyderabad Rep. by its Administrative Officer lvlr. P Ayub Khan

¶179

Mr.. P Ayub Khan S/o Khasim^Kham, Aggd about 61 years, R/o Gokaraju Lailavathi Engineering College, Bachupally-, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶180

...APPELLANTSMRIT PETITIONERS

¶181

¶182

AND

¶183

1 State of Telangana,^{Higher Education Department' Secretariat Buildings,} Hyderabad. Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary,}

¶184

2 Telangana Admission^{and Fee Regulatory} -Committee^{, 2'd Floor,JNA and} in[ timpus, Opp.^{ManavirHoispital,- Mahaveer Marg, Masab Tank,} Hyderabad. Rep- by^{its Member Secretary.}

¶185

Telangana State Council^{for Higher Education, 1't Floor, JNTUIVIasabTank} Cimpti, Mrh"u""r.^{Marg, Oppl Mahavir Hospital, lVlasab Tank, Hyderabad} Represented by its^Secretary.

¶186

4 Osmania Unrversity, Hyderabad.^{Rep.by its Registrar.}

¶187

E The Convenor. TG EAPCET^{2025, Sankethika VidyaBhavan MasabTank} Hyderabad - 500^028.

¶188

. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶189

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶190

Petition under section^{15'1CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated tn} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto direct} Respondent No. 5 to update^{and reflect, in respect of the Petitioner lnstitutionthe} fee of Rs.90,0001^per annum^{for the B.Tech course, for the block periodof A.Y} 2025-26toA.Y.2027-28'ontheofficialportal/websiteofTGEAPCEr2025 pending disposal of the above Writ^Appeal.

¶191

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶192

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the H.igh Courtmay be pleased to} permit the Petitioner lnstitution to^{collect the fee of Rs.90,000/- per annum for the} B.Tech course for the block^{period of A.Y. 2025-26 to 2027 -28 includingby} suspending the effect and^{operationof G.o. I\4s. No. 26 dated 30.06.2025issued} byRespondentNo.landtheorderdatedlltoTt2o25passedbytheLearned Singte Judge in LA.No.'1^{and 2 of 2025in wP No. 19942of 2025 pending disposal} of the above Writ APPeal.

¶193

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRITARUNG- REDDY}

¶194

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY,} SPECIAL GOVERNMENT^{PLEADER REPRESENTING} ADDITIONAL^{ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶195

¶196

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2: SRI P' SRI RAGHURAM'SENIOR COUNSEL} REPRESENTING^{SRIG. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY'} STANDING^COUNSEL

¶197

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.3 & 5: SRIPERIPRABHAKAR'} STANDING^COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH^{KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL}

¶198

Counsel for^{the Respondent No.4: SRI M' SRINIVAS REDDY'}

¶199

STANDING^COUNSEL

¶200

WRIT A,PPEAL^{NO: 766 OF 2025}

¶201

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentPreferredAgainstorderDated 16.07.2025 in^{t.A No.1 & 2 0t 2025 in w.P.No. 19947 0f 20250n the file of the High} Court

¶202

Between:

¶203

1 Keshav Memorial Station Road,^{Kachiguda, Technical ilv;;;t;J Eduoational Society, n"p-ov'tt Secrei6ry Having its Mr' office Neil at Gogte3-2-849'}

¶204

Z Keshav Memorial^{EngineeringCollege.S.y,} -^N9 .^{35' KachvaniSingaram} v-rrlgi' uppur, Ghatke"sar^{-rt/riorr rtrdo.hal'Malkajgiri- 500088Rep by its} Secrbtary Mr^{Neil Gogte}

¶205

J t\Ir. Neil Gogte,^{S/o Late BS Gogte, Aged about62 years'R/o 3-2-849 '} Station Road,^{Kachiguda,Hyderabad}

¶206

...APPELLANTS/WRIT^PETITIONERS

¶207

AND

¶208

1 State of Telangana,^{Higher Education Department,Secretariat Buildings'} Hyderabad,^{nep-.Oy its Principal Secretary'}

¶209

2 Telanoana Admission iffi tffi;;,^{"-cip"p n,'"r'.,rrii and Fee Regulatory Committee, Hoipit"t,'Mahaveer trilarg' 2nd Floor' Masab JNA Tank'and} Hyderabad. Reo.^{by its Member Secretary}

¶210

Telanqana State^{Councilfor Higher Education,. '1'r Floor. JNTUtvlasabTank} " Ufl;'r:i'"i;iili"Ei"nrrig bppi trrtanivrr Hospital, Masab rank Hvderabad Represented^{bY its Secretary.}

¶211

Osmania University,^{Hyderabad. Rep' by its Registrar'}

¶212

The Convenor,^{TG EAPCET 2025, Sankethika VidyaBhavan MasabTank} Hyderabad^- 500^028.

¶213

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶214

¶215

IA NO:^'t OF 2025

¶216

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto drrect} RespondentNo-5toUpdateandreflect,inrespectofthePetitionerlnstitution,the fee of Rs. 90,000/-^{per annum for the B Tech course, for the block period of A Y} 2025-26toA.Y,2027-2E,ontheofficialportal/websiteofTGEAPCEI2025 pending disposal of the above^{Writ Appeal'}

¶217

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶218

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dtrect} theRespondentstopermitthePetitionerlnstitutiontocollectthefeeofRs, 90,000i-^per annum^{for the B Tech course for the block period of A.Y. 2025-26 lo} 2027 -28 including^{by suspendingthe effectand operationof G'O- Ms No' 26} dated 30.06.2025^{issuedby RespondentNo' I and the orderdated 16072025} passed by the Learned^{Single Judgein lA No land 2 of 2025in WP No 19947 of} 2025^{pendingdisposal of the above Writ Appeal'}

¶219

Counsel for the^{Appellants:SRI TARUN G' REDDY}

¶220

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.1: SRI S' RAHUL REDDY'} SPECIAL GOVERNMENT^{PLEADER REPRESENTING} ADDITIONAL^{ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶221

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'2: SRI P' SRI RAGHURAM'SENIOR COUNSEL} REPRESENTING^{SRI G. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY,} STANDING^COUNSEL

¶222

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.3 & 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR'} STANDING COUNSEL

¶223

SRI A.P. SURESH^{KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL}

¶224

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'4: SRI M' SRINIVAS REDDY'} STANDING COUNSEL

¶225

The Court made^{the following:COMMON ORDER}

¶226

,.' ./ .-l

¶227

THE HONOURABLE SRI JtJSl'ICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶228

AND

¶229

THE HONOURABLE, SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶230

WRIT APPEAL Nos.749 ,,753,754,75 8,759.763, 764,765 &766 of 2025

¶231

COMMON JUDGMEN'I': t'per the Llon hle Sn J sttcc l, Sam Koshr)

¶232

Since this batch of writ appeals are filed chaltenging the common order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bcnch of this Coun, they are taken up for analogous l-rearing and arc. being decided by this Common Judgment.

¶233

Heard Mr.^'['arun G. Reddy, leamed counsel for ttre appellants in Writ Appcal Nos.7il. 754. 76i.7b4.765 and 766 ol 2025; Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Scnio. counsel representing Mr. M.pranav, leamed counsel for the appellants in w.it Appeal Nos.758 and 759 ol 2025, Mr'. Sirgapoor Sahi Recidy, learned counsel lor thc appella,ts in wril Appeal No.749 of 2025, Mr. p.Sri Raghu Ram, lcarned Senior co.,sel representing Mr. G.chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned Standir.rg counsel lor respondent No.2 in writ Appeal Nos.753, 754, 158, 759, 763, 763, 765 and 766 of 2025, Mr. peri prabhakar, learned counsel lor respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal Nos.749, 753 and,754 of 2025 & respondent No.3 in writ Appeal Nos.758 and 759 of 2025. and Mr. S.Rahul

\F!

Pagc 2 ol 16

Reddy, learned Special Govemment Pleader,^{representing leamedAdditional}

¶238

Advocate General for the State.

¶239

The instant batch of wlit appeals have bccn filed by thc^appellants assailing the common order dated 11.07.2025^passed by^{the Hon'ble Single} Bench of this Courl in various I.As. those were filed in the respcctive^writ petitions seeking lor an interim direction of staying thc effect and operation ol the G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 30.06.2025, issued by the Higher Secondary Education Department ol the Govemment exercising the powers under Section sub-ru [e (v) of Rute 4 ol the Telangana Admission and F-ee Regulatory Comrnittee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un-aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006, stating that for the present academic year 2025-26 the Private Un-Aided Professional Institutions in Telangana State may as ol now charge fees that which was fixed for the earlier academic year 2022-25

¶240

l'he Hon'ble Single Bench after hearing the various I.As. at length, considcring the principles that are required lor granting of interim reliel lound that, as such, no case ofbalance ofconvenience or irrepalable loss has made out and for deciding the veracity ol the G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 30.06.2025 which is under challenge, a detailed explanation of the case based upon the counters that I would be fited by the respondents is required. Meanwhile, wfile refusing to

¶241

Page 3 of I6

¶242

grant an interim relief, the^{Hon'bleSingle Bench has alsodirectedrespondent} No.5 in the writ^{petitions to ensure that sulficient infbrmationis given to the} students taking^{admission that the lees paidby themas of now be subject to the} result of the writ^{petitionsand lbr /v'hichappropriatecircularin the official} website or any other mode^{shouldbe pubtishedforthwith. The Hon'bleSingle} Bench directed the^{respondentNo.2 in the writ petitions apprising them of the} responsibility and^{also with a directionthat since the proposals submitted by} each of the^{petitioner collegcs lor determining the feesand hearingon those} proposals have been held in March,^{2025, the processol- determiningthe fees be} completed within an outer^limit olsix^{(06) weeks lrom the date of the impugned} common order passed by the^{Hon'bte SingleBench.}

¶243

Learned Senior Counsel appearing^{for the appellantsand the other} leamed counsel who had^{advanced their argumentsin support of their appeals,} tried to impress upon this^{Bench that thc Hon'bleSingleBenchhas failedto} appreciate the lact that the appellants^{herein had all made out a prima} facie strong case in respect ol the^{illegalityon the part of the Govemmentin} determining the fees to be collected^{for the current academic year 2025-26 or} for the next block pcriod 2025-28.

¶244

I t

¶245

Page4ofl6

¶246

6.LeamedcounsellortheappellantssubmittedthattheHon,bteSingle Bench lailed^{to consider the orderpassedin a similar matter by a co-ordinate} Bench,whereininterimprotectionhadbeengranted'This'itwascontended' amounted to a^{departurelrom judicial propriety'Learned counselfor the} appellantsalsoqr"restionedthepowerandjurisdictionofrespondentNo.2sofar as determining^{the fees for an acadetnicyear,which accordingto the learned} counsel,^{has to be teft wetl within the institutionsthemselvesas has been} permittcd by^{thc Hon'bte SupremeCourt in the case of Islamic Academy of} Education vs.^{Statc of Karnataka I and also in the case of T'M'A'Pai} Foundation^{vs. State of Karnataka2'}

¶247

According to^{the leamed counsel for the appetlants'acceptance of the} feesbyrespondentNo.2inthecourscofpersonalhearingwasrecordedinthe registermaintainedintheofficeofrcspondentNo.2andwhereinsignaturesof the appellants^{were also obtainedl{aving done so, the respondent No'2 would} not have issued^{G.O.Ms-No.26with variationof fees withoutgiving any notice} totheappeltantsinrespectofnon-acceptanceofthef.eeswhichwasacceptedin theregistermaintainedbyrespondentNo.2.Further.,thenon-acceptanceofthe

¶248

'^{(zoo:) e scc ost} ( { '(zooz)^{g scc asr}

¶249

[)age 5 ol 16

¶250

fees agreed upon by the appellants was perhaps re-considered on 1g.06.2025, on which date it appears that respondent No.2 had held a meeting and passed a resolution which is contrary to the settled principtes of law and also contrary to the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl and, above all, is in breach of the principles of natural justice.

¶251

It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appe[ants that as per the terms of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 08.01 .2001 , and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education (supra), the fees to be determined is always applicable for three years and the notification for a single year lor the academic year 2025-26 is contrary both to the statutory scheme and also the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court wamanting interfcrence.

¶252

Atl the leamed counsel lor the appellants also assailed the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench on the ground that the appellants had, primafacie brought to the notice of the Hon'ble single Bench that initially in the course of discussion and deliberation with the respondents, the respondents have accepted the fees which was negotiated upon between the appellants and the respondents. The said series was accepted by the authorities after the appelants had submitted tentative fees by the respective petitioners befbre the authorities lbr

¶253

Page 6 ol l6

¶254

the next academic year. It was contended that^{after havingacceptedthe fees} agreed upon, the respondent No.2^{has now taken a somersault and issuedthe} impugned G.O. tn total contravcntion to the rutes, guidelines and also^the mandate ofthe l{on'ble Supreme Court.

¶255

Another ground raised by the learned^{counselfor the appellants was that} the finding of the Hon'ble Single Bench that^{thereseems to be some delayon} the part of the appellants in approaching the^writ Court^{is also not correctfor the} reason that the G.O. under challenge has till date not been^{uploaded, however,} the appellants have somehow obtaincd one copy of^the said^{G.O. on 03.07.2025} and the writ petitions were fi[ed on 10.07.2025. Thus, according^{to the learned} counsel for the appellants, the dates itself show the promptness^{with which the} appellants have approached the writ Court questioning the G.O.Ms.No.26^dated 30.06.2025 and sought for an interim relief.

¶256

Lastly, it r.vas contended that the G.O.Ms.No.26 has been issued without any enabling provision being there under the rules governing the field or in the parent Act and respondent No.lunder no circumstances is empowered ln determining the parameters for fees fixation, nor does the respondent No.1^has the power to even constitute a committee as is reflected in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 30.06.2025

¶257

Page 7 of 16

¶258

Per contra, {r. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel^representing Mr. G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, leamed Standing^{Counsel for TARFC for} respondent No.2, and all the learned counsels^{appearing lor other respondents,} vehemently opposed these writ appeals on the^{ground that} firstly^{the writ} appeals are filed only against the orders^passed by^{the Hon'bleSingle Bench rn} somc of the I.As., and as such, there is hardly^{any scope of interferenceleft with} the writ Appellate Court.

¶259

It was the contention of the leamed Senior Counsel^{that going through the} impugned common order would clearly reflect that^the llon'ble^{Single Bench} has threadbare considered all the contcntions^which the appellants^{have raised} and upon due consideration reached to the conclusion^{that thosecontentions} cannot be decided at this^juncture. According to the leamed Senior Counsel,^the Hon'ble Single Bench held that for deciding these issues, it will be^{required to} enter into the merits of the case and lor deciding the same,^counters of^the respondents would be necessary and therefore, the dccision of^{the respondents} rvas ordered to be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions^{with a directionto} the respondents to indicate by way of a circular to the^{students that whatever} lees that they are paying as ofnow for the academic^year 2025-26would also be subjected to the outcome of the writ petitions

¶260

Pagc 8 of l6

¶261

According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the so-called fees that is reflected in the register maintained by respondent No.2 is not an indication of acceptance of the fees, rather it is only the fees that has been agreed upon by the appellants but was not flnalized or accepted by respondent No.2. It was also contended that subsequent to the proposals having been rcceived, there was a meeting held by respondent No.2 on 18.06.2025, and in the meeting the members have participated and examined the lees proposed by each of the Private Un-aided Institutions for the current block period.

¶262

According to the leamed Senior Counsel, in the course of examining the fees, the committee observed that there was huge variation with the parameters and therefore, the committee thought ol estabtishing a committee which can go into the minute details of the same and therealter reach to a decision determining the fees for each of the institutions. According to the learned Senior Counsel, this aspect is still to be finalized in the writ petitions as would be clear from the impugned common order itselL Thus, these batch of writ appeals deserve to be dismissed.

¶263

At the outset, we need to appreciate the scope of interference to the impugned common order while exercising the powers conferred upon this Courl

¶264

t (

¶265

Page 9 of l6

¶266

under Section l5 of the Letter patents Act. For ready reference, Section l5 of. the Letter Patents Act is reproduced hereunder, viz.,

¶267

''Appeal Jrom the Courts of original jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellare jurisdiclion:- Arul vte do further orclain that an appeal sha lie to the suitl High Court oJ Jutlicature at (Madrqs), (Bonbay), (Forr ll/illiam in Bengal) ./iont^{the judgnent} not being a judgment passecl in the excrcise oJ appellate juri:diction ht respect of a clecree or orcler made in the crercise appellate jurisdiction b1. a C)ourt subiect lo the superintenclence o;f the suid ftigh Court trnd not being an order made in lhe exercise of revisioncrl .ltu.rstlict ion, arul not heing u sent(:nce or orcler passecl or made in exerci.se oJ the potrer of \upctinlenderue under tha provislons of Secrion t07 of the Government cf. Indiu .4ct. or irt the exercise of criminal juriscliction of one Jutll4e <tf the said IIi11h ()ourt or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuont losection l0g t{ the (itt'ernnent of India Act' awr that notll)ithstancling anything hereinbefctre provided, an appeol .thatt tie to the sait) High Court.from a juclgment of one .hdgc oJ the said High. Court or one Judge oJ-the Diviston C.ourt, pursuont to Saction 108 ofthe (]ovcrnment of Inttio Act, matle (on or at'tcr the./irs.t dr4, of l' e bruar),. I 929) in Ihe exercise of uppellare jur isdict ion hy. o L.ourt subjeL.t to tht :upet inlendence of the said High Court, u,here the Jutlge n,ho passecl tha .itrtlgntenl^declares. tlnt lhe cause is a.fit one fttr appeal, but thar the right o[ Ltppeal.liom otlkr judgmenls of Judges oJ the saitt High Court rtr such Divi.sktn (.'outt shull be /o us. our heirs or successors in our or l.heir t,rivy ()ouncil, as herc inofitr prot,ided. "

¶268

A bare perusar of the provisions of Section i5 would make it evidentry clear that the said Section envisages the remedy of appeal onry against the jLrdgments decided by a Hon,ble Single Bench of the High Cour1.

¶269

Page l0 of l6

¶270

17' In the said scenario, what needs to be considered is .,whether the impugned common order can be treated to be one which courd be brought under the provisions or the Letter patents Act or under the purview oFjudgment as is required under Section l5 of the Letter patents Act?,,

¶271

18' An order to be appealabre under crause 15 0r the Letter patents Act should have the traits of a finality of the proceedings and at the same time it should affect the vitar and varuabre rights o. a party. This in other words means that an appeal would be maintainabre only in the evenr. if the order against which the appeal has been filed ca, be brought withi, the purview of a judgment passed by a Hon'ble Singte Bench of the High court. In order ro ascertain the said aspect, we need to look into the observations made by the I,on'ble Single Bench wh,e deciding rhe praycr for granr of interim rerier. For ready reference, the relevant operative portion of thc impugned common order passed by the Hon,blei Single Bench is reproduced hereunder, viz..

¶272

"42. It is relevant lo note that as hettl by this C:ourt in lhe aloresaid common interim order that respondent No.Z Committee is an Elire Group consists of eleven (r l) Members incruding Chairmun, n retirecr lrigh Courr Judge ancr othar ten (10) persons, expert.t in variou.s fiekls. Il is aware of the rimelines fixetl by the Apex Court with regard to atlmissions into Engineering and Medicat College.s. It has to consider the proposols submitred by the Cotteges antt determine the fees once in three (03) years. Having received propdsal.s, in December, 2024, having conducting hearings in March, 2025, responclent.N$.2 (

¶273

Page l1 of 16

¶274

should have nmpleted lhe process of determinalion of./be and sending the sante to respondent .Yo. I be.fora issuance of Admission Schedule by respondent No 5. Admitredl,y. rerltondent No 2 has waited till 18.()6.2025.

¶275

lJ. lt is also upt to note thdt the petitioners haye also woitetl till 10.07.202j. lrltich is tlta h:t dute J'or exercise of options after veriJication of certificatcs ond .fi'eazing^{o.f options.The saidschedulewasissued} on 27 06 2025 by respontlent t\o.5 and intput:tted G.O u,tts issued on 30.06.2025 b1, respondent No l.

¶276

As rightly contended by leorned counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2 that the oplions night hut'e Jreezed by the Authorities concerned by notv. In the light of the suma, the l)a t it ioners .failed to make out any primafacie case to grant interim order antl thare is no balance of convenience in lheir.fatour. I'he pelitioners contendcd thu in thc event o.f petitioners succeeding in the writ petition, it is not possihle /br th,:m to collect the balonce fee from the students antl, therefore, they ttotrld be put to irreparable loss and injury if the interim orders are not grunted in thcir./ vtur ln the light oJ the said submission, to meel the ends of justice, a direction to rc\ponllent ,\o 5 to inform the students lhat poyment of fee by the stutler s to the petilioner utlleges is subiect resull of the preSent v)ril petitions is stt//it itnt.litr IJre pr('\cnt.

¶277

Styaral contenlions raised by the pelilioners including lhe conlention thal minutcs d ted 18.06.2025 tf respondent No.2 is contrary to the Rute.s, 2006 require tletuiletl e\omination on filing counters by the respondents.

¶278

TheteJitrc. uil thc.se Inlerlocutory Applicalions are accordingly tlispo.setl of holtlirry thut Vt it petitioners are not enlitled lor lhe interim relief as sought by thent in the afitresuid L.ls. Hou,ever, respondent No.5 is directcd to inform the sttrdents Ihul tlte -fee paitl by rhem to the pelitioner instilutbns i.\ subject to lhe result of presettt vtit petilions by placing appropriate Circulor in its OlJicial LIlebsite or any other Mode.

¶279

Page 12 of l6

¶280

Respondenl No.2^{shatl completelhe entire exercise of considercttionoJ'} proposals submilled by^{the petitioners, determine the fee andsend it to} re spttrulent No.l within^{six (06) wee ks} .from^{today "}

¶281

Now from^{the aloresaid contents of the impugned common order passed} bytheHon'blesingteBench,wencedtolookintothemeritsaspccts'Froma ptain reading of the^{operativeparagraphol the impugned commonorder'} reproducedabove,whatisreflectedisthat,itisnotanorderwhichcanbesaid to have been^{attained finality. Rather,the finding whichis reflected is that the} Contcntionsraisedbytheappellantsareonewhichwouldhavetobeconsidered aftercountcrsarefiledbytherespondentsandthosecountersneedtobe Scrutinizedbeforereachingtoanyconclusion.Thisitselfisasufficient indication of the^{impugnedcommon order not being conclusive'}

¶282

20.AnotheraspectwhichneedstobeconsideredisthatthcHon,bleSingle Rcnch has^{not decided the question of lau. the issues in controversy'the} objections^{pertaining to the competenceand jurisdiction of the respondents'} andalso whether^{the authorityconcemedcould have issuedsuch a G.O. In the} absence of any^{decision or conclusive finding given by the Hon'ble Single} Bench. tl.re order^{in itself cannotbe saidto be a judgmentwithin the meaning of} Section 15 of the^{l-etterPatentsAct LetterPatents appeal' in itself, doesnot} ( mean it could^{challenge any order passed by a Hon'ble Singlc Bench on}

¶283

Page l3 ol 16

¶284

Interlocutory Applications. Rather, an appeal would be ,.raintainable only against thosc orders *herc the issues get decided and such decision on the issues would advcrsely alfect the vital and valuable rights ol the parties, and which can cause selious injustice to the party concemed.

¶285

At the same time, il we look into the impugned common order it would clearly give an indication that the Hon'ble Single Bench has in fact granted some protection to thc claim of the appellants as well. The Hon'ble Single Bench has rnade a clear observation that the respondents sha take steps by issuing circular intimating the students taking admission that whatever fees that they pay would be tenrarive fees subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. This in other words rneans that, ultimately in the event writ petitions are allowcd by the llon'ble Single l3ench, the appellants would be at libefty ro charge the diflercnce of f-ees tiorn students.

¶286

22, Yet another aspect w'hich needs to be considered is that respondent No.2 / The Telangana Ad,rission and Fee Regulatory commission, in fact, had called upon the proposals submitted by the appellants and similarly placed other institutions and the said proposals are pending consideration before respondent No.2 and the IJon'ble Single Bench in the operative part arso directed respondent No.2 to complete the entire exercise on due consideration of the f t

¶287

Page I4 ol l6

¶288

proposals submitted by the appellants determining^{the fees and to send it to} respondent No.I within six^{(06) weeks.} This^{again is a sultrcientindicationol} the issues which have been raised^{by the appellantsstill to be inconclusiveand} whatever proposals have been submitted^{is yet to be scrutinized by the said} committee.

¶289

Anothcr aspect which needs^{appreciationis the lact that once whenthe} Hcn'ble Single Bench having^{categorically made obser-vationdirectingthe} respondent No.2 to complete^{the processof determination ol lees withina} period of six (06) weeks from the date^{of the impugned common orderbeing} passcd keeping ir.r view the timeline^{given by the Hon'bleSupremeCourtfor} closing ol the admissions, it^{would not be properat this juncturefor the} Division Bench to sit over the said order^{passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench} and threadbare consider whether^{the Hon'ble SingleBencl.r was justihed in} refusing grant of interim relief.

¶290

As has been rightly observed by^{the Hon'bte Single Benchthat lor} determination of fees, the writ^{Courtwould not be the appropriateforumas} there are various parameters which^needs to^{be physically examinedbefore} finalizing the fees. These parameters and^{principles require examinati} on of the paramcters and facilities being provided by each^{of the institutions,} again are ( -t

¶291

Page l5 of l6

¶292

within the puNiew of the technical expeft in the field and it cannot be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India

¶293

Yet another aspect which necds to be delved into is that, the nature of interim relief which the appcllants are seeking lor is,in itsetf the final relief and it is well settled proposition ol law that final relief cannot be and should not be passed by way ol interim orders. [&ether respondent No. I had the power to issue notification. rvhether there was in fact earlier determination of fees carried out by respondent No.2 and rvhich also stood approved in their register, are all matters which shall be considered by the Hon'ble Single Bench while deciding the matter on nierits. If Lhcse issues are decided while considering the Interlocutory Applications itsell,rhcre 'uvill not be anything left to be adjudicated in the writ petitions finally.

¶294

For all the afbresaid reasons, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that since the impugned comrnon order under challenge is not one where any issues have been t'inalized or any right stands crystallized in favour of any of the parlies, in our vie,,v, the said impugned common order is not assailable under c'lause l5 of the Lettcr patents Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the finding given by the Hon,ble Single Bench is not

l i

Page 16 of 16

one^{which warrants interference,and these batch of writ appealsthus being}

¶303

devoidolmerit,deservetobeandaccordinglydismissed.Nocosts.

¶304

As a^{sequel, ntiscellaneouspetitions pendingif any'shall stand closed}

¶305

SD/-P.^{GOWRI SHANKAR} D PU TY^{REGISTRA R}

¶306

//TRUE^COPY// ECTION^OFFICER

¶307

To, 1. One^{CC to SRI SIRGAPOOR SAHIL REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI} ? Two CCs^{to the Advocate General High Courtfor the State of Telangana at} HYderabad [OUT]

¶308

One^{CC to SRI G CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY' Standing Counsel IOPUCI}

¶309

One^{CCto SRI A P SURESH KUMAR' Standing Counsel IOPUCI}

¶310

One^{CC to SRI PERI PRABHAKAR' Standing Counsel IOPUC]}

¶311

6 One^{CCto SRI TARUN G REDDY' AdvocateIOPUCI}

¶312

One^{CC to SRI M PRANAV' Advocate IOPUCI}

¶313

One^{CC to SRItvl. SRINIVAS REDDY' Standing Counsel IOPUCI}

¶314

tW^{9. Two CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510712A25

1HE Sr.
n
( o
{
/
?<br>22 AUE 26
,P,
ott /'
:-,..'

¶322

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶323

W.A. Nos,74g,^{753, 754, 758,759, 763, 764, 765 & 766} of 2025

¶324

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT APPEALS} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶325

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Primary Agricultural Co-Oparative Society Limited Vs Assessment Unit

M/s. The Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited Vs Assessment Unit

The Primary Agricultural Vs Assessment Unit

M/S. Modi Xerox Ltd., (Presently Known as Xerox India Ltd) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vignana Jyothi Society Vs The State of Telangana

Gokaraju Ranga Raju Educational Society Vs State of Telangana