Disposed

Vasavi Academy of Education (Regn.No.918/1980) v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jan 2026WP/651/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An engineering college sought release of tuition fee reimbursement dues under the State scheme, unpaid despite tokens issued. The Court held withholding undisputed dues was arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16, and directed respondents to process remaining bills and release payments within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to process remaining bills and release payments per legal entitlement within eight weeks; no costs.

Vasavi Academy of Education (Regn.No.918/1980) Vs… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 651 OF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vasavi Academy of Education (Regn. No.91B/1980), Rep. by its Secretary, Sri VM Parthasarathi S/o. Late Srr V. Balaguruvappa, 9-5-81, lbrahimbagh, Hyderabad - 500 031

¶10

Vasavr College of Engineering (Autonomous), Sponsored by Vasavi Academy of Education, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, Sri V.M. parthasarathi S/o. Late Sri V. Balaguruvappa^g-5-B'1 , lbrahimbagh, Hyderabad - 5OO 031

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

'l State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt Higher Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, SC Welfare Department, Telangana Secretarrat. Hyderabad

¶15

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Backward Classes Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶16

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶17

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Secretary, Finance Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶18

Telangana Council for Higher Education, Rep. by its Chairman, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028

¶19

Commissioner of Technical Education, 2rd Floor, VidyaBhavan, Opp. Latha Talkies, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶20

B. Commissioner, BC Welfare, DSS Bhavan, Masabtank, Hyderabad

¶21

Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, DSS Bhavan, Masabtank, Hyderabad

¶22

Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, DSS Bhavan, Masabtank, Hyderabad

¶23

-l 1. Managing Director, tv4rnority Welfare Department, Haj House, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶24

..,RESPONOENTS

¶25

Petrtron Lrnder Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in thr: affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased toto issue writ. order or di'ection more particularly one rn the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the fees under the tuition fees reimbursenrent scheme to the 2'd Petitioner College from the yeat 2O1}-2O2O lo 2024-2025 and also the action of the^'1'' Respondent in keeping the amounts pending for an unreasonably long time as iilegal. arbrtrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-,4 Conslitutron of lndra and further direct the Respondents to immediately release the fees due to the College under the tuition fees reimbursement scheme wtth interest quantified at^g percentage per annum and consequently release the {tntire amounts due and further direct the Respondents to pay the interest (@ 11.5^on per annum) incurred by the College on the loan amount of Rs 26.75 Crores taken by the College ,lue to non-release of these funds by the Government.

¶26

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

¶27

Petition unde:' Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the aifidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to immedlately release all the amounts due under the tuition fees reimbursement scheme tc the 2nd Petitioner College with interest of 9%, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. SRIKANTH

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 7: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶30

counsel for the Respondent No.2,3,4,8,9,10 & 11: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR FINANCE

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI A.P. SURESH, SC FOR TSCHE

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

¶35

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶37

AT HYDERABAD

¶38

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶39

WRIT PETITION No.651 of 2026

¶40

DATE: 08.O1.2O26

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

Vasavi Academy of Education and another

...petitioners

And

State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt,

¶47

Higher Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶48

.... respondents

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on behalf of

¶51

¶52

rne^{respondent Nos.1 and 7,learnedGovernment} pleader^{for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of the} Nos.2, 3t^{4, 8, 9, 1O and 11' learned} le5Pondent Pleader^{for Finance appearingon behalf} 6OVernment af^{the respondent No'5 and Sri A'P' Suresh'learned} gtanding^{Counsel for Telangana Council for Higher} gducation^{appearing on behalf of the respondent} No.6'

¶53

2- e r r h

¶54

erev$s-undsi

¶55

"......to^{issue writ, order or direction more} pu.tl.rturiy on"^{in th" natureof Mandamus declaring} the action of^{the Responoentsin not releasing the fees} ;;;;;-ih;^{luitionfees reimbursement scheme-tothe} -ollese from the vear 2o1e-2020. to ;l':i;"iiil;;, iozi-lois^{ina atso-the action of the 1't Respondent} In- t".ping^{the amountspendingfor an unreasonably} i"." tiln"'"t^{illegal,arbitraryand uiolatiue} -o-f^Articles il,'ri,' ,-i""iJ'o,in^{or the constitution of India and} fr.tn"i direct^{the Respondentsto immediately. release} ttre'collese^{underthe tuition fees} i;;";";'Jr;-to reimb u rsement^{scheme witli interest quantified at 9olo} o-".^{'nnua and consequentlyrelease the.e,ntire} 5i ",-I"it-Jr"^{lna rurtt'eidirect the Respondents to} ;;;Hili"i"'t^{to 11'5o/oper annu-m)ln:y":d bv} [nJ Corres"^{on the loan amountof Rs'26'75} -Crores i"i""'-lv"ir,"^{cottegedue to non-releaseof these} funds by^{the Government and pass such other order} as the Hon'ble^{court deems fit and properin} ;; ";";

¶56

¶57

¶58

the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

¶59

The case of the Detitio ners in brief s Der the av e m er he avi fit n tn fth sen t a

¶60

under:

¶61

i) The 1st^petitioner is a registered charita ble society established in the year 1980, and the 2nd petitioner is a self_ financing, unaided Engineering College established in 1981, affiliated to Osmania University, approved by AICTE, accredited with NAAC A++, NBA Tier-I, granted autonomous status by UGC up to the academic yar 2030-31, and ranked in the 201-300 band . of NIRF. The College is entirely dependent on tuition fees as its sole source of income.

¶62

ii) The State Government implements a Tuition Fee Reimbursement Scheme for eligible SC/ST/BC/EBC/Minority students admitted under Category 'A,. During the academic years 2019-20 to 2025-26, 2,g85 students of the 2nd Petitioner College were eligible for reimbursement, for which

¶63

¶64

a total sum of^{Rs.74.83crores became payableby the} Government.

¶65

¶66

iii) Though 89 tokens^{were issued for an amount of} Rs.28.48 crores^{from June 2023 onwards,the said amounts} were not released.^{Exceptfor a meagre payment of Rs.1.11} crore on 01.10.2025, a^{sum of Rs.73.72 crores remains} unpaid for over five^years. Despite repeated re presentatio ns, the^{Respondentsfailed to releasethe} sanctioned amounts.^{Aggrievedby the same, the} petitioners approached this Court by filing^{the presentwrit} petition.

¶67

4, PERU ED THE RECORD:

¶68

DISC SSION AN^{D CONCLUION:}

¶69

5 Learned counsel^aoo rrno on behalf of the ner in! ht t

submissions:

5.1 Vide a detailed^{representation dated 04'12'2025.} addressed to respondent^{No.1 herein, the petitioners} represented that a total^{amount of Rs'73'72 crores is} refundable to the^{petitioner institution towards tuition fee} reimbursement for the^{academic years 2019-2O20to 2025-} 2026 in respect of^{studentsbelonging to} SC/ST/BClEBC/M^{inority categories'}

¶74

5.2 Although tokens^{had already been issued, no payment} had been made so^{far and the remainingbills have been} pending for a considerable^period'

¶75

5.3 Out of the^{total outstanding amount of Rs'74'83} crores^payable to^{the petitionerinstitution, only a sum of} Rs.1.11 crores^{was receivedon 01'10'2025, and the} petitioner institution is^{yet to receive the balance amount of} Rs.73.72 crores, thereby^{putting the petitioner institution} into serious financial^crisis.

¶76

5.4 Until and^{unless sanctionis accordedand paymentis} released at the^{earliest, the petitioner institution would be}

¶77

¶78

put to serious^{hardshipand the very functioningof the} institution^{would be jeopardized.}

¶79

¶80

Learned^{AssistantGovernmentPleader} appearing on^{behalf of the respondents submits that} tokens have already^{been issued in favour of the} petitioners for an amount of^{Rs.28.48crores,} however,^{payment had not.yet been made, and some} reasonable time may^{be granted for release of the} amounts due to the Petitioners.

¶81

A bare^perusal of the^{recordindicates that the} petitioner submitted a representation dated^04.12'2025 seeking immediate release,^{in one instalment,of an amount} of Rs.2B.4B crores for^{whichtokens had already beenissued} but^payment had not been^{made, and a furtherrequest that} the remaining bills be^{processed, sanction accorded, and} payments released at the earliest, to^{ensurethe functioning} of the petitioners'^{institution. Though thesaid} representation was acknowledged by^theofficeof

¶82

¶83

¶84

respondent No.1 on O4.LZ.2O2S itself, yet no action has been initiated thereon till date.

¶85

8 This Court opines that respondent No.1 cannot subject the petitioner institution to hardship affecting its very functioning. Since the amounts admittedly due to the College have been pending for the last five years, this Court further opines that, inasmuch as the reimbursement scheme itself has been conceived by the Government, there is a corresponding obligation on the State Government to process and release the bills of the petitioner College. The same cannot be kept pending for an unreasonably long period, especiaily when the amounts pertain to students allotted to the College by the Government itself, and hence, this court opines that the petitioner is entifled for the rerief as prayed lor in the present writ petition.

¶86

9 e Dex Co rt tn e udo me t DO d tn 3 2 n u n Lim vs. Ta mil N duE!ectrici B rda nd not er

I I i I 1 I i l

! iI I r i I : , I I I I I

¶92

r t

¶93

and 40 observed as under:

¶94

"39. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Shrilekha Vidyafthi (Kumari) v. State of u. p.a observed that there exists "an obvious difference,, between contracts concerning private parties to those wh ich have State as a party. The primary difference being that the State while exercising its powers and drscharg ing its functions "acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public Aood and in public interest,,. The said factor singularly is suFficient to bring into any transaction the minimal req urrements of public law to which the State is a party The fact that a disoute il n v h reouirements of Article 14.

¶95

Further the Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi case had observed that: (SCC p.237, pa? 24)

¶96

"24, The State cannot be attributed the split personality of Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the con tractua I field so as to impress on it all the characteristi cs of the State at the threshold while making a contract requiring it to fulfll the obligation of Article .14 of the Co nstitution and thereafter permitting it to cast off its garb of State to adorn the new robe of a private body during the subsistence of the contract enabling it to act arbitra rily subject only to the contra ctual obligations and re med ies Flowing from it. It is reat,ly the nature of its personality as .Sfafe which is signifi,cant and must characterize alt its actions in whatever field, and not the nature of function, contractual or otherwise, which is decisive of the nature of scrutiny permitted for examining the validity of its act.

¶97

¶98

¶99

concept of reouiring the State always to so act. even in contractual matters. There is a basic difference between the acts of the State which must invariably be in public interest and those of a private individual, engaged in similar activities, being primarily for personal gain, which may or may not promote public interest. Viewed in this matter, in which we find no conceptual difficulty or anachronism, we find no ncasgD whv the requirement of Article 74 should not extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for requlatinq the conduct of the State activitv."

¶100

This Court opines that the vaew of the Apex Court in its catena of decisions on the point that when there is non-payment of the undisputed bills the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and withholding the same amounts to patent arbitrariness applies to the facts of the present case.

¶101

The iudqment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reoorted in AIR 2O2O Su reme Court 3969 and in Darticular Dara Nos.lOO nd 1O1 held as follows:

¶102

"100. The High Courts exercising their^jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of manda m us, but are dutv-bou to exercise such oower. where the Government or a^public authoriW has failed exerctse or has wron lv cxercised

¶103

¶104

-l

¶105

t r n c con siderat^on,

¶106

In all su^{ch cases, the Hiq} Cou mu rssuea writof mand mus^and tve irecti ns com oel m ti r e r public authority.^"

¶107

L2, TA KING^INTOcoNSIDE TI N:

¶108

a) The aforesaid^{facts and circumstances of the}

¶109

case,

¶110

b) The submissions^{made by the learnedcounse!} appearing on^{behatf of the petit'oners and the learned} Assistant Government^{Pleader aPpearing on behalf of} the respondents,

¶111

c) The contents^{of the petit'oner'srepresentation} dated 04.12.2O25^{addressedto the respondent No'1} herein, which had^{been acknowledged by the office of} respondent No.1 on^{O4.12.2025 itself,}

:' a

lr !: I i ,N ,t

I I

d) The fact as borne on record and not disputed by the respondents that tokens had already been issued to the petitioners institution for an amount of Rs'29'4g crores, however, no payment had been made as on date, and

¶117

e) The fact that thers sys bifis pending to the extent of Rs.73.72 crores, which have not been processed, sanctioned or payment released as on date;

¶118

f) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above and enlisted beflow):

¶119

i) (2029) I SCC 24O ii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 The wti De it on !s diSDos I no dent o I o n ider the riev n of e t t e e ti e or a of an a ount oJ

¶120

b---

¶121

issued but oavment had not been^mad to the petitioner institution, b) the request of the oetitioner r releas mo n tn I e h re ue t ner nctio the remainin bills and release the DaYments to the Detitaoner herein as Der Detitioners'^{leqal entitlement} and pass appropriate orders within a^period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Courtⁱⁿ the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and duly communicate the same to the^petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶122

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending in this Writ

¶123

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶124

SD/-A. SREENIVASA REDDY SSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶125

//TRUE COPY//

¶126

SECTION OFFICER

¶127