Court mandates prospective application of revised fees; retrospective enhancement deemed inequitable and barred by Estoppel.
In a landmark judgment passed on March 23, 2026, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya, has decisively ruled against the retrospective application of revised fee structures for students already admitted to Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur. The judgment comes as a relief to students who were subjected to enhanced fees post-admission, following a notification issued on October 16, 2023.
The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Pratik Dhar, challenged the mid-session fee hike, arguing that it violated Regulation 7(7) of the All India Council for Technical Education (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admissions in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994. They contended that any enhancement in fee structures must be prospective, applying only to future admissions, to prevent undue financial distress to students already enrolled based on previously announced fee structures.
The court, after thorough examination, found merit in the appellants' arguments, highlighting the importance of equity and the doctrine of Estoppel in safeguarding students from retrospective financial burdens. The judgment underscored that the fee structure, once declared and relied upon by students during their admission process, should not be altered mid-session. Such changes, the court noted, could disrupt the academic pursuits of marginalized students and contravene the principles of fairness and transparency in educational administration.
While dismissing the writ petitions initially filed by the appellants, the Single Judge had overlooked significant aspects of equity and Estoppel, prompting the appeals. The Division Bench observed that the notification's provisions were intended for prospective application, beginning with students admitted post-notification, and not those already admitted prior to the notification date.
The court directed that any additional amounts collected under the revised fee structure be refunded or adjusted with future fees, thereby aligning with the equitable principles and ensuring justice for the affected students. The judgment further instructed that the revised fee structures published by the college, pursuant to the October 16 notification, be quashed concerning students whose admissions were completed before that date.
This decision sets a precedent in upholding the rights of students against arbitrary fee hikes and reinforces the legal framework governing educational institutions' fee structures. The court's refusal to stay the judgment reflects its commitment to securing students' futures and preventing academic disruption.
Bottom Line:
The fee structure for professional courses cannot be retrospectively enhanced for students who have already completed the admission process, and any revised fees applicable must be prospective, ensuring equity and adherence to regulatory norms.
Statutory provision(s): Regulation 7(7) of the All India Council for Technical Education (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admissions in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994, principles of Equity and Estoppel.
Tanushri Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2870596
