JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri Deo for the petitioners, Shri C.J. Sawant, Advocate General with Smt. S.S. Gokhale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri R.A. Rodriques for respondent No. 3 and Shri V.D. Govilkar with Smt. J.A. Sarkhot for respondent No. 4. In this petition the question which arises for our consideration is whether the tuition fees fixed by the State Government for the students of the medical colleges in the State of Maharashtra under Govt. Resolution dated 17th July, 1997 is arbitrary and, therefore, hit by provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the said Resolution is illegal being contrary to the provisions of any enactment or rules made thereunder. 2.The petition has been filed by a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Council and 60 students taking education for M.B.B.S. course in the Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Karad, District Satara, which is a private Medical College and which is represented before us by its Principal respondent No. 4. The 60 students, who are the petitioners, have been admitted to the M.B.B.S. course in two batches; some of them have been admitted at the commencement of the Academic year 1995-96 and others have been admitted at the commencement of Academic year 1996-97. The M.B.B.S. course is of four and half years comprising of nine terms. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in (Unni Krishnan J.P. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others)1, 1993(1) Supreme Court Cases, 645 as far as a private Medical College like respondent No. 4 is concerned, for the Academic year 1993-94, annual tution fees was fixed at Rs. 1,40,000/- for payment seat for Category 1, comprising of medical colleges who have their own hospital facilities. The same was fixed at Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum for a payment seat for Category 2 comprising of medical colleges partly utilising facilities of the Government hospitals, and partly their own hospitals and for Category 3, comprising of those medical colleges, who did not have their own hospital facilities but depended entirely on Government hospitals for training students, it was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum, per payment seat. This is clear from the directions given by the Apex Court on 7th October, 1993 in (T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others)2, 1993(4) Supreme Court Cases 276. 1,00,000/- per annum, per payment seat. This is clear from the directions given by the Apex Court on 7th October, 1993 in (T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others)2, 1993(4) Supreme Court Cases 276. 3.For the Academic year 1994-95, the Apex Court by its order dated 13th May, 1994, in (T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka)3, 1994(4) Supreme Court Cases 728, fixed a tenative and provisional fee structure for medical colleges as under:--- CATEGORY 1" Rs. 1,10,000/- per year Category 2: Rs. 1,00,000/ per year; and Category 3; Rs. 90,000/ per year. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with details of the fees for the dental colleges since, in the present petition, we are only concerned with the students for M.B.B.S. course. 4.For the Academic Year 1995-96, by its order dated 11th August, 1995, in interlocutary application Nos. 25 to 27 in (T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others etc.)4, A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 2431, fees was fixed at Rs. 75,000/- p.a. in respect of colleges falling in Category 1, Rs. 70,000/- p.a. in respect of college falling in category 2 and Rs. 65,000/- p.a. in respect of college falling in Category 3. By order dated 11th December, 1995, in Interim Application in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, the Apex Court directed as under: "The stand taken by the students in this application seems to be justified. This Court do not fix the fees for the entire course but, only for the Academic Year or till the order remained operative. In this view of the matter, fees determined by us, for the Academic year 1995-96, shall be applicable even to the course which commenced a year or two earlier. To make it clear students who were admitted to a consolidated course during the years 1993-94, and 1994-95, shall also pay the reduced fees fixed by our order dated 11-8-1995 irrespective of the year of their admission. To make it clear students who were admitted to a consolidated course during the years 1993-94, and 1994-95, shall also pay the reduced fees fixed by our order dated 11-8-1995 irrespective of the year of their admission. Application is allowed in the above terms." (Emphasis supplied) 5.By its order dated 9th August, 1996, in (T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka)5, 1996(5) Supreme Court Cases page 8, the Apex Court expressed its distress at the failure on the part of the Government, affiliating Universities, statutory professional bodies like the University Grants Commission, Indian Medical Council and All India Council for Technical Education, to fix the fees which was not the function of the Court. Directions were therefore, given to the said authorities to evolve such fee structure as they thought appropriate, in such terms and subject to such conditions as they felt were in the interests of student community, private professional colleges as also in public and national interest. We will refer to these directions at a later part of this judgment, Suffice it to say, at this stage, that pursuant to the directions given by the Apex Court, under a Resolution dated 4th July, 1997, passed by the State Government, a State Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Vice Chancellor of University of Mumbai was constituted to determine the fee structure for free seats and payment seats in the private Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The Committee held two meetings, on 11th July and 15th July, 1997 at Mumbai and submitted its report to the State Government. On the basis of the said report, the impugned Government Resolution has been passed on 17th July, 1997 under which the fees payable by a student admitted to a payment seat in a private medical college as far as Academic year 1997-98 is concerned, has been determined at Rs. 1,05,000/-. As indicated earlier, it is not necessary to discuss the fee structure for dental colleges. In effect, as against the fees of Rs. 75,000/- p.a. that was payable during the last two Academic Years namely 1995-96 and 1996-97, for the next three Academic Years, commencing from 1997-98, the State Government has fixed the fees for a payment seat per year at Rs. 1,05,000/-. For 1993-94, the same was fixed at Rs. 1,40,000/- and for 1994-95, it was fixed at Rs. 1,10,000/-. 75,000/- p.a. that was payable during the last two Academic Years namely 1995-96 and 1996-97, for the next three Academic Years, commencing from 1997-98, the State Government has fixed the fees for a payment seat per year at Rs. 1,05,000/-. For 1993-94, the same was fixed at Rs. 1,40,000/- and for 1994-95, it was fixed at Rs. 1,10,000/-. It is this Resolution (Annexure 1 page 23) dated 17th July, 1997 passed by the State of Maharashtra, which is challenged as being arbitrary and/or illegal. While praying for quashing the said Resolution, the petitioners contend that since they were admitted in the two prior Academic years of 1995-96 and 1996-97, they are liable to pay only Rs. 75,000/- per year for the entire course of four and half years and not the increased fees of Rs. 1,05,000/- per year from 1997-98 for the remaining period of the course. 6.Before considering the petitioners' submissions, it is necessary to refer to the Government Resolutions sanctioning the rules and prospectus for admission to the medical/dental courses in the State of Maharashtra every year. We are concerned with the students have been admitted during the Academic years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Under the Government Resolution dated 31st May, 1995 issued by order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra, Rules for selection to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for the Academic Year 1995-96 were framed and the same were duly published. Rules 9.0.1 and 9.1.1. read as under: "FEES, FREESHIP AND SCHOLARSHIPS 9.0.1. The fees for various courses in Government as well as private college, will be as prescribed by the Government from time to time. 9.1.1. Following tables show annual rates of payment of fees. On selection, the candidate is required to pay the fees for the whole year. Thereafter, the fees are payable every term." TABLE ......................................... .......................................... The above fees structure is subject to any revision ordered by Hon'ble Supreme Court or Hon'ble High Court.(Emphasis supplied.) 7.For the Academic Year 1996-97 rules were published under the Government Resolution dated 6th June, 1996 by order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra and the relevant rules are as under: "FEES, FREESHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP 9.0.1. The fees for various courses in Government as well as private colleges, will be as prescribed by the Government from time to time. 9.1.1. Following tables show annual rates of payment of fees. The fees for various courses in Government as well as private colleges, will be as prescribed by the Government from time to time. 9.1.1. Following tables show annual rates of payment of fees. On selection, the candidate is required to pay the fees for the whole year. Thereafter, the fees are payable every term." TABLE ......................................... .......................................... The above fee structure is subject to any revision ordered by Hon'ble Supreme Court or Hon'ble High Court." For Academic Year 1997-98 the relevant rules were published under the Govt. Resolution dated 28th May, 1997 pursuant to the directions given by the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5410 of 1996 on 2nd May, 1997. The relevant portion appears in Annexure I of the said rules as under : ANNEXURE I. FEES, FREESHIPS SCHOLARSHIPS The fees for various courses in Government as well as private college, will be as prescribed by the Government from time to time. Following tables show annual rates of payment of fees. On selection the candidate is required to pay the fee for the whole year. Thereafter, the fees are payable every term. TABLE ......................................... .......................................... The above fees structure is subject to any revision ordered by Hon'ble Supreme Court or Hon'ble High Court. 8.It is thus clear that the fees for the various courses in Government as well as private medical/dental colleges were as prescribed by the State Government from time to time. The amount of fees namely Rs. 75,000/- per year for a payment seat in private medical colleges belonging to category 1 was the annual rate fixed for the Academic Year 1995-96 and again for 1996-97 only. The rules and prospectus contemplated revision of fees as ordered by the Apex Court or by this Court. There is no assurance either in the rules or prospectus that the fee fixed at the commencement of the course would continue to remain unchanged till the student completed the entire four and half years course comprising of nine terms. The rules and prospectus contemplated revision of fees as ordered by the Apex Court or by this Court. There is no assurance either in the rules or prospectus that the fee fixed at the commencement of the course would continue to remain unchanged till the student completed the entire four and half years course comprising of nine terms. Indeed, as we will demonstrate from the orders of the Apex Court, it was contemplated that the fee would undergo a change and, in the very nature of things, having regard to the criteria considered by the Committee appointed by the State Government pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, it is clear to us that several factors had to be taken into account for deciding the actual fee structure. In their very nature, these factors are variable and the orders passed by the Apex Court make it clear that fees were tentatively fixed only for a particular Academic Year subject to appropriate Government or statutory authorities fixing the fees in their own discretion subject to such conditions as they felt were in the interest of the student community, private professional colleges as also in public and national interest. 9.The State Government and the University of Mumbai have opposed the petition and have supported the fee structure as determined under the impugned Government. Resolution dated 17th July, 1997. The fourth respondent, namely the Principal of the Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences has filed an affidavit setting out the various steps taken pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court from time to time leading to setting up of the State Level Committee for determining the fee structure. The report of the Committee headed by the Vice Chancellor of the University of Mumbai has been placed before us which constituted the basis of the impugned resolution dated 17th July 1997. It is, therefore, submitted by the respondents that the impugned resolution is neither arbitrary nor is it illegal. Before considering the pleadings and the material placed before us, we think it necessary to make a brief reference to the law laid down by Apex Court in this behalf. 10.It is matter of common knowledge now that some of the private medical/dental colleges in the country were charging, what has commonly come to be known as, "capitation fees" for admission to the medical/dental courses. 10.It is matter of common knowledge now that some of the private medical/dental colleges in the country were charging, what has commonly come to be known as, "capitation fees" for admission to the medical/dental courses. This had given rise to a large scale discontent amongst the students, parents, educationists and some public spirited citizens. The issue was agitated at the highest level in Unni Krishnan J.P. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1993(1) Supreme Court Cases 645. It was held that even the private colleges and aided institutions have to abide by all the rules and regulations as may be framed by the Government or by recognising/affiliating authorities in the matter of admission of students, recruitment of Teachers and staff, their conditions of service, syllabus, standard of teaching and so on. The admissions had to be based on merit and merit alone subject to any reservation under Art 15 of the Constitution of India. It was observed that higher education falls heavily on national economic resources and right to it must necessarily be limited in any country by its economic and social circumstances. Such obligation to provide higher education is, therefore, not absolute and immediate but relative and progressive. The Court, therefore, evolved a scheme for admission of students and charging of fees in private professional colleges. The main idea behind the scheme was to eliminate unguided discretion in the management which was stated to be abusing it and the Court expressed a hope that the scheme would be given a statutory shape by incorporating the same in the rules that may be framed under the relevant enactment. The Apex Court considered the fact that as far as the State of Maharashtra was concerned, the State Legislature had enacted Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act, 1987 (Maharashtra Act VI of 1988) to prohibit collection of capitation fees for admissions of the students to and their promotion to higher standard or class in the educational institutions in the State of Maharashtra and to provide for matters connected therewith. 11.In the scheme framed by the Apex Court, in para 206 onwards in the judgment in Unni Krishnan's case at page 756 onwards, the Court dealt with the subject of reservation of seats. 11.In the scheme framed by the Apex Court, in para 206 onwards in the judgment in Unni Krishnan's case at page 756 onwards, the Court dealt with the subject of reservation of seats. 50% of the seats in every professional college are to be filled in by nominees of the Government and University, as the case may be, which are referred to as "freeseats" and remaining 50% seats are to be filled in on the basis of merit of those candidates who are prepared to pay the fees prescribed therefor namely for "payment seats". The manner of collection of fees was laid down and directions were given in sub-para (6)(a) of para 210 that every State Government shall forthwith constitute a Committee to fix the ceiling on the fees chargeable by a professional college. The Committee was to make an enquiry but it was not bound to give personal hearing to any one or follow any technical rules of law. A direction was given that the Committee should fix the fees once in every three years. Amongst others, factor to be considered in the matter of determination of fees was whether the private educational institution is entitled to charge only that fees as is required to run the college or whether the capital costs involved in establishing the college can also be passed on to the students and, if so, in what manner. It was observed that keeping in view the need, interest of the general public and of the nation, a policy decision was to be taken. In para 213 of the judgment at page 761, the Apex Court observed that it had devised a scheme of "free seats" and "payment seats" to provide more opportunities to meritorious students who may not be able to pay enhanced fees prescribed by the Government for such colleges, namely, private educational colleges. The theoretical foundation for the scheme devised by Apex Court was that the candidate who is stealing a march over his compatriot on account of his economic power should be made not only to pay for himself but also to pay for another meritorious student. This was the social justification for distributing the seats as 50% free seats and 50% payment seats. This was the social justification for distributing the seats as 50% free seats and 50% payment seats. 12.In T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others (I) v. State of Karnataka and others, 1993(4) Supreme Court Cases 276 decided on 7th October, 1993, the Apex Court made it clear that it was fixing the fee tentatively for the private medical colleges in all the States. The fees fixed by Apex Court namely Rs. 1,40,000/- for payment seats in Category 1 colleges was only tentative and provisional in nature and was liable to be adjusted in accordance with the fee structure evolved by the Central Government and/or Appropriate Central Council, as the case may be. There was further observation that the figure fixed by the Court was no indication and shall not be treated as such by any Government or authority fixing the fee structure on a regular basis. Again for the Academic year 1994-95 the Apex Court passed an order on 13th May, 1994 in T.M. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 1994(4) Supreme Court Cases 728 directing that it was fixing a tentative and provisional fee structure for the medical/dental colleges for the Academic Year 1994-95. This was further reiterated on 11th August, 1995 when fees payable for the Academic Year 1995-96 were fixed in Interlocutory application Nos. 25 to 27 in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others etc. v. State of Karnataka and others A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 2431. If there were any doubts as to whether the students admitted in a particular year were entitled to claim that they should be liable to pay only that fees which was tentatively determined at the commencement of the course for the entire tenure of four and half years, such doubts were dispelled by an order passed by the Apex Court on 11th December, 1995 which we have extracted in para 4 above. The Apex Court made it clear that it had not fixed the fees for the entire course but only for the Academic Year or till the order remained operative. It was made clear that fees determined by the Court for the Academic Year 1995-96 was to be applicable even to the course which had commenced a year or two earlier. The Apex Court made it clear that it had not fixed the fees for the entire course but only for the Academic Year or till the order remained operative. It was made clear that fees determined by the Court for the Academic Year 1995-96 was to be applicable even to the course which had commenced a year or two earlier. Thus, the students who were admitted to a consolidated course during the Academic Year 1993-94 and 1994-95 were also to pay the fees fixed under the order dated 11th August, 1995. (A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 2431). This order, in our view, leaves no doubt whatsoever that fixation of fees was tentative and was an yearly affair and related only to the fees for that Academic year. There is no indication in the rules/prospectus for admissions for the Academic Year 1995-96, 1996-97 that fees prevailing at the commencement of the said Academic years were to remain in force till the entire course was completed over a period of four and half years covering 9 terms. We find nothing in any of the orders passed by the Apex Court to suggest that if the students were admitted in the year 1995-96 or 1996-97, as in the petitioners' case, they will continue to pay the fees for the entire course of four and half years on the basis of the fees that was tentatively fixed at the commencement of the course for the Academic Year 1995-96 or 1996-97. On the contrary, the orders passed by the Apex Court and the clarification dated 11th December, 1995 issued by the Apex Court (para 4 above), leaves no doubt in our mind that the fees fixed are to operate for a particular Academic year or part of the course of four and half years which the student is undergoing. 13.What is of importance in this behalf is the approach indicated by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above. Higher Education falls heavily on the national economic resources. The private medical colleges have to provide for infrastructure on their own. Cost of land, buildings for college, library, laboratory, sophisticated equipments, residential quarters has to be borne by the management of such private professional colleges. Higher Education falls heavily on the national economic resources. The private medical colleges have to provide for infrastructure on their own. Cost of land, buildings for college, library, laboratory, sophisticated equipments, residential quarters has to be borne by the management of such private professional colleges. It would not be proper to compare the fees in a Government or Municipal College with the fees in a private professional college in view of what has been observed by the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan J.P.'s case (supra). The directions given in para 5 of the order dated 9th August, 1996 in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 1996(5) Supreme Court Cases 8 may be extracted in this behalf. "5. We must express our distress at the inaction of the authorities pursuant to para 6 of the Scheme aforementioned. Though a period of more than three years have passed by since the decision in Unni Krishnan, the authorities mentioned in the said paragraph have not come forward with a workable, realistic and just fee structure, with the result that year after year, this Court is practically being forced to fix the fee on a tentative basis. Fixing the fees is not the function of this Court. It is the function of the Government, the affiliating universities and the statutory professional bodies like, University Grants Commission, Indian Medical Council and All India Council for Technical Education. At least now, we expect the authorities concerned to move in the matter with promptitude and evolve an appropriate fee structure. While doing so, it is made clear, they shall not feel shackled by the orders made by this Court from time to time relating to fee structure. It shall be open to them to evolve such fee structure as they think appropriate, in such terms, and subject to such conditions as they feel are in the interests of the student community, the private professional colleges as also in public and national interest. We hope and trust that the fee structure to be evolved by them would take into consideration the ground realities and would be realistic and practical from the point of view of all concerned. We hope and trust that the fee structure to be evolved by them would take into consideration the ground realities and would be realistic and practical from the point of view of all concerned. In particular we request the Central Government, including the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Human Resource Development), to take immediate steps to convene a meeting of all the authorities concerned as contemplated by para 6 of the Scheme and ensure that a proper fee structure is evolved for the medical, dental and engineering colleges throughout the country. It shall be open to the authorities to fix separate fee structure for each of the States, if such a course is warranted. It may also be open to the authorities to fix different fee structure having regard to the location of the colleges, to wit, a college in the city of Bombay may be allowed a different level of fees than a similar college (with similar facilities) situated in a rural area. To reiterate, the Central Government and the authorities concerned shall be free to evolve the fee structure in such appropriate manner as they think just and equitable to all concerned. We hope and trust that this would be done within a period of three months from today and the matter brought to the notice of this Court forthwith. We wish to make it clear that with effect from the Academic Year 1997-98, it shall be the responsibility of the authorities aforesaid to prescribe the fee payable in these colleges."(Emphasis supplied) 14.It was pursuant to these directions that the State Government constituted a Committee under the Resolution dated 4th July, 1997. The Committee was headed by Vice Chancellor of the University of Mumbai Dr. (Smt.) Snehalata Deshmukh and two other members were Shri Subodh Kumar, Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Government of Maharashtra and Dr. S.K. Ganeriwal, Director of Medical Education and Research, Government of Maharashtra. The Committee held its meetings on 11th and 15th July 1997. It considered the directions given by the Apex Court from time to time. It felt that costs of medical education varies very widely between one institution and other depending upon the infrastructural facilities, method of accounts, the age of its assets, its location, availability of super specialities and sophisticated equipments, income generated from the medical college and hospital. It considered the directions given by the Apex Court from time to time. It felt that costs of medical education varies very widely between one institution and other depending upon the infrastructural facilities, method of accounts, the age of its assets, its location, availability of super specialities and sophisticated equipments, income generated from the medical college and hospital. The Committee, therefore, decided to choose a representative hospital in a medium city where the facilities prescribed by Medical Council of India existed and number of beds in the hospital was as prescribed by the Medical Council of India. Applying these criteria, Dr. V.M. Medical College, Solapur and Government Medical College, Nagpur were taken as representative medical colleges for the purpose of deciding the fees structure. The Director of Medical Education and Research collected the figures in respect of actual expenditure incurred by these two medical colleges and their hospitals for the year 1995-96. The Committee took the view that private medical colleges for which fee is to be determined were already having infra structure and only the expenditure on the maintenance of the hospital and college needed to be taken into account. This makes it clear that capital expenditure on infra structure was not to be taken into account and only the expenditure on maintenance of hospital and college was to be taken into account. On collecting the figures from the statements of income and expenditure, the Committee worked out the average expenditure per student in Dr. V.M. Medical College, Solapur to be Rs. 1,28,353.92 and the average expenditure per student at Government Medical College, Nagpur worked out to Rs. 1,00,854/-. The Committee decided to take the average expenditure incurred at the two medical colleges per student which worked out to Rs. 1,14,604/- per student per year. Committee then took the view that the fees should be so fixed that the private medical colleges were able to recover their expenditure. Taking the intake capacity of 100 students per year, the Committee fixed the fees for the 35 payment seats, 15 N.R.I. seats and 50 free seats. It is on the basis of these criteria that for the three years commencing with Academic Year 1997-98, for a payment seat, the fee has been fixed at Rs. 1,05,000/- per year whereas for the N.R.I. seat it is Rs. 5,25,000/- per year. It is on the basis of these criteria that for the three years commencing with Academic Year 1997-98, for a payment seat, the fee has been fixed at Rs. 1,05,000/- per year whereas for the N.R.I. seat it is Rs. 5,25,000/- per year. For the free seat in the private medical colleges, fee has been fixed at Rs. 12,000/- per year. It is on the basis of this report that the impugned Government Resolution has been issued on 17th July, 1997, which makes it clear that the fees fixed would remain valid for 3 years commencing with the Academic Year 1997-98. Those who have paid the fees in the past namely, such of them who were admitted in the Academic years 1995-96 and 1996-97, will not be called upon to pay any additional fees for those two Academic years but from 1997-98 onwards they will be called upon to pay the fees at the rate of Rs. 1,05,000/- for a payment seat and Rs. 12,000/- for a free seat. It may be stated that under the impugned Government Resolution, there is no distinction in the fees payable depending upon the category in which a college falls. However, the college is required to pay a portion of the fees collected either to the Government or to the authority running the hospital in case their facilities are utilised by such a medical college. 15.In our view, the Committee has taken into account the directions issued by the Apex Court and has considered all the relevant material. It is not as if the Committee considered any irrelevant, extraneous or inadmissible material for determining the fee structure. The directions given by the Apex Court made it clear that the fees structure had to be fixed having regard to the problems faced by the private professional colleges. It is not only the interest of the student community but the interests of the private professional colleges as also of the public and the nation that have to be considered while fixing the fee structure. One cannot sacrifies the quality or the standard of professional education for the sake of lowering the fees. A medical college and hospital requires sophisticated equipments, trained staff, qualified specialists and super specialists to produce better professionals. They must have necessary funds to meet these demands. One cannot sacrifies the quality or the standard of professional education for the sake of lowering the fees. A medical college and hospital requires sophisticated equipments, trained staff, qualified specialists and super specialists to produce better professionals. They must have necessary funds to meet these demands. It is not even in the interests of the students to take education in a college which lacks infra structural facilities, has no proper equipment, has no trained staff and perhaps, therefore, charges less fees. We are dealing with professionals like doctors in the present case. It is elementary that in order to safeguard even the interests of the students as also of the private professional colleges, such colleges must ensure that they have complete infrastructure as laid down by the Government, University Grants Commission, Indian Medical Council or All India Council for Technical Education depending upon the faculty of specialised education. These factors must be taken into account while evolving a rational fee structure. We are of the view that the Committee set up by the State Government has considered these factors. The report of the Committee gives the relevant details. They are supported by the tables showing the expenditure incurred by the colleges which were taken as representative institutions, viz., (i) Dr. V.M. Medical College at Solapur and its hospital and (ii) Govt. Medical College at Nagpur and its hospital including the health unit. In our view, there is no arbitrariness on the part of the Committee in arriving at its conclusions. As far as the State Government is concerned, the manner in which the decision has been arrived at is entirely fair and reasonable. Having appointed the Committee pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, the State Government has accepted the recommendations of the Committee in toto and there is no deviation from the recommendations of the Committee. There are no extraneous factors even alleged in the petition which would vitiate either the manner or the decision arrived at by the State Government in its Resolution dated 17th July, 1997. There is no breach of any provision of any enactment or rule made thereunder. No illegality has been pointed out to us in passing the impugned Government Resolution. 16.At one stage, it was faintly suggested that the students may be able to contend that they are protected by doctrine of promissory estoppel. There is no breach of any provision of any enactment or rule made thereunder. No illegality has been pointed out to us in passing the impugned Government Resolution. 16.At one stage, it was faintly suggested that the students may be able to contend that they are protected by doctrine of promissory estoppel. We do not think that there was any such promise in the rules or prospectus for admission to the medical courses during the Academic year 1995-96 or 1996-97 with which we are concerned. We have reproduced in paras 6 and 7 above the relevant clauses in the Government Resolution containing the rules/prospectus for the Academic Year 1995-96 and 1996-97. In fact, the Government made it very clear that the fees in the private medical colleges as also in the Government medical colleges were to be prescribed by the Government from time to time. The table indicated only the annual rate of fees and it was specifically mentioned that even the said fee structure was subject to any revision ordered by the Apex Court or the High Court. In the Government Resolutions, for the academic year 1995-96 and 1996-97, the same rule has been repeated indicating that the fee structure that was fixed was tentative and provisional and even if the student was admitted in an earlier year, say 1993-94 or 1994-95, such a student had to pay fee as was determined in the year 1995-96 or 1996-97 for that year. This was made abandantly clear in the order dated 11th December, 1995 which we have reproduced in para 4 above. There is thus no merit in the suggestion that the students may be protected by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. No promise was ever made to the students that the fee prevailing at the time of their entry to the course would remain unchanged throughout the entire course for a period of four and half years. 17.In this behalf we may refer to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of (Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar and etc. v. State of Maharashtra and others)6, 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 280 This Court was considering the plea of promissory estoppel in respect of similar rules framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, though in a different context. v. State of Maharashtra and others)6, 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 280 This Court was considering the plea of promissory estoppel in respect of similar rules framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, though in a different context. Under the earlier Government Resolution of 1971, admission to the post graduate courses was on the basis of the marks obtained in the "subject concerned" at the final M.B.B.S. examination. The marks in the subject which was opted for post-graduation study were alone to be considered as decisive. However, under subsequent resolution of 1989, the "aggregate marks" obtained at the first, second and final M.B.B.S. examinations were the decisive criterion. The challenge was on the ground of promissory estoppel. In respect to this challenge, it has been observed by the Full Bench that it was not possible to accept the contention that the prospectus once issued by the Government, cannot be \altered at all at a subsequent stage. The Government which has competence to issue rules or regulations, has, as a corrollary, powers to amend or alter or even repeal and reissue such rules and regulations. It was difficult to accept the proposition that the rule of promissory estoppel operates even qua the rules for admission to the medical colleges. Altered situations needed alteration in the rules and if on the basis of the relevant material, the Government comes to the conclusion that the fee structure needs a change, in our view, the plea of promissory estoppel cannot be urged in support of the petitioners' contentions. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the plea of promissory estoppel. 18.In view of the above, we find no merit in the petitioners' challenge to the Resolution dated 17th July, 1997. There is no arbitrariness in the impugned resolution. The provisions of Article 14 have not been violated in any manner whatsoever. There is no breach of any provision of the Act or Rule made thereunder so as to render the said resolution illegal. The petition is thus devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim order to stand vacated forthwith. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.