The Telangana High Court suspended a clause in a government order introducing a DBT mechanism for fee reimbursement, ruling it inconsistent with its earlier directions. The Court warned that issuing such orders against interim rulings could amount to contempt and gave the State until May 4 to respond.
Published Date – 1 May 2026, 12:10 AM
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court on Thursday suspended a controversial clause in a recently issued Government Order relating to the fee reimbursement scheme, observing that it appears to be in direct conflict with the Court’s earlier interim directions.
The order came in a batch of writ petitions challenging the implementation of the fee reimbursement mechanism and the State’s delay in clearing admitted dues to educational institutions.
The petitioners contended that despite earlier directions, the Government had failed to file counter-affidavits indicating a timeline for clearing pending fee reimbursement amounts. Instead, the State issued G.O.Ms.No.7 dated April 29, 2026, introducing a Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) mechanism.
A contentious provision—Clause XII of Paragraph 5—stipulates that colleges shall not insist on payment of tuition fee and other charges at the time of admission, requiring students to pay fees from amounts credited to their accounts under DBT.
Counsels appearing for the petitioners argued that the clause effectively restrains institutions from collecting fees, in violation of the Court’s interim order dated April 2, 2026, which permitted such collection.
The Special Government Pleader, appearing for the State, submitted that the GO was issued only a day earlier and sought time to obtain instructions. He also fairly conceded that the impugned clause appears to be inconsistent with the Court’s earlier order.
Taking note of the submissions, the Court observed that the issuance of a Government Order contrary to its interim directions would amount to contempt. It held, prima facie, that the impugned clause is inconsistent with its earlier order.
Accordingly, the Court ordered interim suspension of Clause XII of Paragraph 5 of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated April 29, 2026, until May 4, 2026, and granted time to the State to file its response, including details on the timeline for clearing dues to the institutions. The matter has been posted for further hearing on May 4.
