S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 4. 8. 99 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed. The writ application was filed by one Arun Kumar Majumdar as Secretary of the Guardian Association of the Julien Day School and Julien Day Nursery School questioning the enhancement in the rate of tution fees of the said schools, inter alia, on the ground that the same was arbitrary in nature. The writ petitioner had given a Comparative Chart as regard the enhancement of fees on various heads from year to year which reads thus: comparative chart of fees and other charges in respect of each student in every Session. Session Admission Session Tution Dev. Cost of Diary Fee fee fee fee   fees Book 91-92 Rs. 200/-   Rs. 100/- Rs. 10/-     92-93 Rs. 250/-   Rs. 135/- Rs. 10/-     93-94 Rs. 300/- Rs. 200/- Rs. 135/- Rs. 10/- Rs. 15/-   94-95 Rs. 400/- Rs. 200/- Rs. 135/- Rs. 15/- Rs. 10/- Rs. 15/- 95-96 Rs. 600/- Rs. 300/- Rs. 165/- Rs. 25/- Rs. 20/- Rs. 30/- 96-97 Rs. 800/- Rs. 300/- Rs. 185/- Rs. 35/- Rs. 20/- Rs. 30/- 97-98 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 600/- Rs. 200/- Rs. 35/- Rs. 30/- Rs. 30/- 98-99 Rs. 2000/- Rs. 800/- Rs. 250/- Rs. 45/- Rs. 20/- Rs. 30/- ( 2 ) IN the writ application, the writ petitioner, inter alia, questioned the notices dated 26-2-98 and 2-3-98 which are contained in annexure 'a' to the writ application whereby and whereunder the enhancement in the fees on various heads had been notified. The case of the appellants on the other hand is that keeping in view the fact that the institution is an unaided one and further in view of the condition of grant of recognisation by ICSE authorities to the effect that the salary paid to the teachers must be equivalent to the salary paid to the teachers employed by the State, it had no other alternative but to take the aforementioned steps. It had been, inter alia, contended;"it is specifically stated that before enhancement of fees as mentioned in the Notice dated March 2, 1998 and February 26, 198 the school authorities had held a meeting with the guardians of the wards of the school and in consultation with the guardians of the wards, such enhancement of fees were made. In any event it is beyond any dispute that expenses in every walks of life is increasing rapidly in comparison to the immediate earlier year and in order to meet the raising costs involved in running the school, the school authorities had no other alternative, but to increase the fees as mentioned in the said notice which is not only nominal and small in consideration to the raising costs but also much lower at the rate taken by other similar private institutions. Moreover, in order to seek affiliation for the Science stream of the school, in response to persistent requests of the guardians, the school has to fulfill the condition of separate well-equipped laboratories and in order to meet up costs involved for such fulfilment of the condition and other day to day costs involved in running the school, the school authorities had no other alternative but to increase the fees including the security deposit at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- being interest free refundable at the time when the student leaves the school. It is stated that from the comparative chart of fees and other charges in respect of each student in every session, it would be evident that the tution fees and session fees and other fees were never increased every year as alleged by the petitioner. Session fees and tution fees were increased after every 2 to 3 years in order to meet up the rising costs involved in running the school and to meet the administrative expenses. It is to be borne in mind that the school is entirely an unaided one and it has to meet its expenses to a large extent from the fees collected from the students. It would also be found from the said comparative chart that the fees were not at all increased every year and the enhancement of fees, whenever made, were not at all exorbitant, in comparison to hike in prices in all respects, rather the same was negligible. It would also be found from the said comparative chart that the fees were not at all increased every year and the enhancement of fees, whenever made, were not at all exorbitant, in comparison to hike in prices in all respects, rather the same was negligible. It is repeated that whenever the rate of fees have been increased, the same have been increased in consultation with the guardians in order to meet the rising cost involved in running the school and to meet the administrative expenses of the school. It would be evident from the chart given by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the petition that in the session 97-98, tution fees were increased only Rs. 15/- in relation to the previous year and, for the session 98-99, the same was increased to Rs. 50/- in relation to the year 1997-98. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the school authorities have increased the tution fees Rs. 700/- per year. I repeat the tution fees for the session 98-99 has been increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- i. e. at the rate of Rs. 50/- only. Such enhancement is meagre and small in consideration of the raising costs in all respects and administrative expenses involved in running the school and the same cannot be a nightmare of the guardians of the students. Apart from the same, such enhancement involving the consideration of the hike in costs and administrative expenses in running the school, cannot form the subject-matter of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, for the purpose of adjudication of the same, extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court cannot be invoked or availed of. "2. Our attention had also been drawn to the Balance Sheet for the year 1998-99 which is contained in annexure 'b' to the writ application from a perusal whereof it appears that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was, inter alia, required for the purpose of construction of Laboratory and Building construction by way of Capital Expenditure. "2. Our attention had also been drawn to the Balance Sheet for the year 1998-99 which is contained in annexure 'b' to the writ application from a perusal whereof it appears that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was, inter alia, required for the purpose of construction of Laboratory and Building construction by way of Capital Expenditure. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge while taking into consideration the fact that unaided institution can not compelled to charge on the same fees as are charged in the Government Institutions, observed;"an unaided institution cannot be compelled to charge the same fee as charged in the Government institution as they have to meet the cost of imparting education from their own resources and the main source can only be the funds collected from the students and that is the concept of 'self financing educational institutions' and 'cost based educational institutions' come in. The cost of education, however, may vary from institution to institution and in this respect many variable factors may have to be taken into account. But one thing is clear that commercialisation of education cannot and should not be permitted which intention has been clearly expressed by the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures in unmistakable terms. Further, both in the light of our tradition and from the stand point of interest of general public commercialisation is positively harmful; it is opposed to public policy. This is one of the reason for the conclusion that imparting education cannot be trade, business or profession. " ( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge, however, placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1999 Delhi 124, and inter alia, held that as even in Delhi the tution fees is determinded at Rs. 200/- and was found to be adequate by the competent authorities inter alia, directed; (i)No development fee shall be realised. (ii)No admission fee of more than Rs. 200/- per student at the time of initial admission shall be realised. (iii) No security of more than Rs. 500/- shall be realised. 200/- and was found to be adequate by the competent authorities inter alia, directed; (i)No development fee shall be realised. (ii)No admission fee of more than Rs. 200/- per student at the time of initial admission shall be realised. (iii) No security of more than Rs. 500/- shall be realised. The security money so collected shall be kept deposited in a Scheduled Bank in the name of the concerned School and shall be refunded to the school at the time of the student leaving the school along with bank interest thereon which in turn the school shall refund to the student or his/her guardian after deducting lawful dues, if any, of the School. Security deposit collected in excess of Rs. 500/- shall be refunded to the parents of the students within 15 days hereof. " ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge, further, directed the State Government to audit the accounts of the Schools every year for the purposes mentioned therein. ( 6 ) MR. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, inter alia, produced before us a Comparative Chart of fees taken by various Schools with a view to show that fee-structure varies from Rs. 105 p. m. to Rs. 550 p. m. and/or in some cases upto Rs. 8, 000/- p. a. The learned counsel contends that there are various types of schools in the State of West Bengal viz. :1) Schools recognised by and affiliated to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, which are fully aided;2)Partially aided School's which obtain grant only to the extent of Dearness Allowances payable to the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff;3)The schools which are not getting any aid whatsoever;4)Schools affiliated to ICSE or CBSC which bodies are not governed by any statute. ( 7 ) IT was, therefore, submitted that fee-structure as a matter of necessity must vary from school to school. It was further submitted that levy of tution fees would also depend upon the facilities including co-curricular activities provided to the students. ( 8 ) IMPARTING of education to the Citizens is a sovereign function of the State, although the children above the age of 14 years do not have any fundamental right in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan, J. P. and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. etc. ( 8 ) IMPARTING of education to the Citizens is a sovereign function of the State, although the children above the age of 14 years do not have any fundamental right in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan, J. P. and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. etc. , reported in AIR 1993 SC 2178 = 1993 (1) SCC 645 . ( 9 ) THE right to receive education although is a cherished object of the founding fathers of the Constitution as it appears from the Statement of the Directive Principles engrafted in Part-IV of the Constitution of India and in view of the fact that the State being unable to provide for education to all the citizens of India such sovereign function of the State is shared by the Non-governmental organisations; can it be said that a writ Court may interfere with the fee structure of a totally unaided institution particularly when no statute or statutory provision exists in relation thereto? There can not be any doubt whatsoever that as far as practicable, education should be within the reach of the common men but the history shows that the Elites of the Society had all along been getting better educational facilities as they had been and still are in a position to spend a huge amount on education of their wards. ( 10 ) IT will be an ideal situation where the tution and other fees demanded by a School not be so high so as to obtain grant of better facilities while studying in a school by a student would be difficult. ( 11 ) RUNNING of a school should not although be a trade or a business but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court educational institutions are industries within the meaning of provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dichotomy operating in the field is although manifest but the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matter is limited. An educational institution particularly when it is an aided one having been discharging a sovereign function of the State is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The dichotomy operating in the field is although manifest but the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matter is limited. An educational institution particularly when it is an aided one having been discharging a sovereign function of the State is amenable to writ jurisdiction. But, in our opinion, except in very exceptional cases the Court may not interfere in the private affairs of the school particularly in respect of its fee structures unless it is found to be wholly unreasonable and/or contrary to the provision of the statute operating in the field. ( 12 ) IN Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 Delhi 124, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was concerned with interpretation of section 17 of the Delhi School Education Act. Section 17 of the said Act reads thus :-"section 17. Fees and other charges. 1)No aided school shall levy any fee or collect any other charge or receive any other payment except those specified by the Director. 2)Every aided school having different rates of fees or other charges or different funds shall obtain prior approval of the prescribed authority before levying such fees or collecting such charges or creating such funds. 3)The manager of every recognised school shall, before the commencement of each academic session file with the Director a full statement of the fees to be levied by such school during ensuring academic session, and except with the prior approval of the Director, no such school shall charge, during that academic session, any fee in excess of the fee specified by its manager in the said statement. " ( 13 ) THUS, the said provision also does not impose any restriction on charging of any fees by an un-aided institution. ( 14 ) THERE cannot be any doubt whatsoever that even the minority institutions within the meaning of Articles 29 and 30 of Constitution of India are not free to do whatever they like. In the name of the Management of the School they can neither mismanage the same nor run an educational institution by way of a commercial pursuit. Thus, the State in a given case, may regulate the functions of all the schools including minority institution except to that extent protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India by enacting a statute. Thus, the State in a given case, may regulate the functions of all the schools including minority institution except to that extent protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India by enacting a statute. The Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh's case (supra) must, therefore, be considered in the light of the statute governing the filed. ( 15 ) UNFORTUNATELY, no such statute or executive instructions having the force of law, operates in the field in the State of West Bengal. In absence of such statute it, in our considered opinion, is difficult to conceive as to how the writ court in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the matter particularly when it is evident that the fee structure depends upon the facilities which are made available to the students. If the students intend to have better facilities and amenities, they may have to bear higher financial burden. ( 16 ) AN Annual Edition of Anglo Indian Education for the year 1998-99 published by Inter-State Board for Angle-Indian Education clearly gives a picture as to how the tution fees vary from Rs. 105/- p. m. to Rs. 80,000/- per annum i. e. Rs. 960/-p. m. ( 17 ) THE co-curricular activities of the schools vary. The name of the Julien Day School appear at Serial No. 141 of the said publication wherefrom it appears that various sports and others activities like cricket, football, hockey, quiz, elocution, dance, drama, art, etc. are encouraged in the school whereas; for almost similar facilities in Julien Day School in Calcutta, the tution fee is Rs. 375/- per month whereas in the school in question it is Rs. 250/- p. m. ( 18 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the fact that no statutory provision interdicts, we are of the opinion that tution fee of Rs. 250/- p. m. cannot be said to be exorbitant only because in Delhi in terms of the provision of section 17 of the Delhi School Education Act, a fee of Rs. 200/- p. m. had been fixed. We do not know as to what co-curricular activities and other infrastructure have been provided in the schools of Delhi. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was not correct in issuing the impugned directions. 200/- p. m. had been fixed. We do not know as to what co-curricular activities and other infrastructure have been provided in the schools of Delhi. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was not correct in issuing the impugned directions. For the reason aforementioned this appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. M. H. S. Ansari, J.-I agree. Latter xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for urgently may be given on property basis. Appeal allowed.