Judgment :- BAKTHAVATSALAM, J. 1. The petitioners have come up before this court questioning the increase in fees payable for part-time polytechnic courses as it is without authority of law. 2. After the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh ((1993)-1-S.C.C. 645) the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 727, Education dated 29.7.1993, issued a draft Notification by which it is proposed to increase the fee structure i.e. tuition fees to be received or collected from First Year Diploma Course students from Government, Government Aided and Self-financing Private Polytechnics (free seat category) is Rs. 1,200/- per annum and for self-financing Private Polytechnics (pay seat category) is Rs. 4,300/- It is alleged in the affidavit that though the Government took into account the Report of Dr. Ananthakrishnan Committee, it has unreasonably increased the fee structure in the Government colleges to Rs. 1,200/- whereas the committee had recommended only Rs. 750/- per annum. It is stated that the draft notification is yet to be confirmed by a final notification. It is also alleged that when the Government is yet to formulate its final decision, the respondents 2 and 3 had already started collecting tuition fees as provided in the draft notification. The petitioners allege that the petitioners are concerned only with the fee structure of the Government run polytechnics. It is also alleged that the fee charged for the previous academic years in the Government run polytechnic was only Rs. 200/- for regular students and Rs. 400/- for the part time polytechnic students and that since the issue is covered by Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1992, the first respondent should have adopted a fair and reasonable method to arrive at the fee structure. It is also alleged in the affidavit that in the guise of fixation of the tuition fee for self-financing polytechnics, what the State Government has done was that it had effected a steep hike in the tuition fee payable by the students even in Government run Institutions, even in free seats. It is alleged in the affidavit that the polytechnic courses cannot be compared with the courses like Medical, Engineering and other Super-Specialities and that therefore when the Government chose to fix the fee structure, it must have had a scientific method. It is also pointed out that Dr. It is alleged in the affidavit that the polytechnic courses cannot be compared with the courses like Medical, Engineering and other Super-Specialities and that therefore when the Government chose to fix the fee structure, it must have had a scientific method. It is also pointed out that Dr. Ananthakrishnan Committee has taken note of the fact that students are coming from very poor families, the Government run Institutes should not charge more than Rs. 750/- per annum. The petitioners also allege that the first respondent has not given any rational basis for deviating from the recommendations made by Anatha krishnan Committee. With these allegations, the petitioners have come up before this court. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent stating that the order revising the fee structure was issued by the Government vide its letter No. 48882/H2/93/3 dated 5.7.1993 and followed by a Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 727, Education, dated 29.7.1993 and that based on the orders of the Government, the fees for the part-time diploma was also revised at the same ratio and fixed at Rs. 2,600/- per annum. It is also stated that though the Government had issued Notification, the academic year 1993-1994 had already commenced and as such few institutions have collected an undertaking from all the students to accept the revised fees while a few collected the fees according to the new rules. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that in view of the interim orders of this court, the third respondent herein has been requested to collect only the old rates until further orders and that the benefit of the stay order of this court has already passed on to the students. 4. Mr. K. Chandru, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates the contentions in the affidavit and contends that it is only a draft Notification under the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, (Act No. 57 of 1992) and as such it is not open to the respondents to collect fees at enhanced rate. Learned counsel draws our attention to the draft Notification which has been issued in the Gazette in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 727, Education dated 29.7.1993 which is heavily relied on by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. 5. Learned counsel draws our attention to the draft Notification which has been issued in the Gazette in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 727, Education dated 29.7.1993 which is heavily relied on by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. 5. Learned Government Advocate contends that the petitioners have come up before this court at the stage of draft Notification itself and that the writ petition has to be dismissed on that ground. 6. We have considered the arguments of Mr. K. Chandru, the learned counsel for the petitioners and of the learned Government Advocate for the respondent and have gone through the affidavit and the counter-affidavit, filed by the second respondent. It is to be stated that the first respondent has not filed a counter affidavit, in this case. There is no dispute that G.O.Ms. No. 727, Education 29th July 1993 is a draft Notification issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, under which the tuition fees to be collected from the first year students from Government, Government Aided and Self-financing private polytechnics are prescribed. In so far as the Government has not come out with the final Notification fixing the fees to be collected from the first year diploma course, students we do not think the respondents can collect the fees at higher rates as notified in the draft Notification. Surely, we are of the opinion, that for the academic year 1993-1994, the respondents cannot insist upon the students to pay fees at higher rates since no final decision has been taken by issuing final Notification. From the counter affidavit, it is seen that the respondents seem to have implemented the draft Notification and requested all the principals to collect fees at higher rates. On this simple ground, a direction has to issue to the respondents not to collect at the enhanced rate mentioned in letter No. 28672/J2/93 dated 28.7.1993 which seems to be a Circuit issued by the Additional Director of Technical Education (Polytechnics addressed to all Principals of all Polytechnic/Government/Government Aided/Self-financing. In the result, the impugned Circular dated 28.7.1993 shall stand set aside and wherever excess fees are collected from the students in pursuance of the impugned order, shall be refunded to the students, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.