JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — This is an application by one of the representatives of the parents of the students of the Sainik School, Bhubaneswar, questioning the legality of enhancement of the tuition fees and diet charges of the students. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present writ petition are : The Sainik School at Bhubaneswar is one of the 18 Sainik Schools existing throughout India and the same was created under the control of the Ministry of Defence for the purpose of educating the students of different income groups of the society and to train them to become Sainiks. It is stated that at the time of admission of students, it was given to understand by the authorities of the School that Government would provide scholar¬ship basing upon the income of the parents and the parents con¬sidering the said scholarship of the Government got their chil¬dren admitted in the school. But the parents whose children were not eligible to get any scholarship, considering the total ex¬penditure to be incurred during the year decided to get their children admitted and accordingly prepared to meet the expenses. It has been further stated that the course undertaken in the school is Central Board of Secondary Education course and it is not so easy to change the school at the middle of the session. According to the petitioner, during the year 1996-97 the parents were to deposit a total fee of Rs. 11,000/- including all charges of the Sainik School but during the year 1997 the aforesaid fee was enhanced to Rs. 14,000/- for the session 1997-98 and the said enhanced amount was collected from the parents. It is fur¬ther stated by the petitioner that in 1998 the school authorities again enhanced the other fees, i.e., pocket money from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-; incidental charges from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/-; clothing charges from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 750/- and added two other charges, i.e., mediclaim of Rs. 70/- and diet charges of Rs. 1350/-, for the session 1998-99. These additional amounts were also collected from the parents in addition to the fees so depos¬ited by them for that year. 1,000/-; incidental charges from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/-; clothing charges from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 750/- and added two other charges, i.e., mediclaim of Rs. 70/- and diet charges of Rs. 1350/-, for the session 1998-99. These additional amounts were also collected from the parents in addition to the fees so depos¬ited by them for that year. During the year 1999 the School authorities added two other charges, i.e., text book and station¬ery charges to the other fees for the session 1999-2000 and, according to the petitioner, all the enhanced amounts have been collected from the parents of the students. But while the parents of the students deposited the entire enhanced school fee for the session 1999-2000, the Principal-O.P. No. 4 by his office order dated 15.7.1999 revised the school fees and enhanced the same from Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and the diet charges from Rs. 1350/- to Rs. 5500/- per annum per student and accordingly the parents were directed to pay the differential amount by 15.8.1999 vide Annexure-4, which is impugned in this writ peti¬tion. 3. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enhancement of the fees of the students by Rs. 10,150/- in the mid-session is illegal and arbitrary as it is evident from the action taken by the authori¬ties in the past that the fees have been increased by 130% within a span of three academic years, i.e., from 1996-97 to 1999-2000. That apart, the authorities have also enhanced the other fees and charges without consulting the parents of the students and the said action of the authorities is illegal and arbitrary. The next part of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Government of Orissa has not changed the income slabs of the parents despite various revision in the scales of pay, as a result of which Class-III and Class-IV em¬ployees whose income slabs have now increased to more than Rs. 3,000/- were compelled to pay more and had their slabs for the purpose of scholarship been increased according to the pay revi¬sion the Class III and Class IV employees would have got full scholarship. On the aforesaid allegations, counsel for the petitioner argued that the school ultimately shall income a school for the persons having good financial background and will not serve the purpose for which it was established. On the aforesaid allegations, counsel for the petitioner argued that the school ultimately shall income a school for the persons having good financial background and will not serve the purpose for which it was established. The poor and the middle class parents have been put to harassment because of the enhance¬ment of the fees and other charges. The petitioner has, there¬fore, prayed in the writ petition for quashing the impugned office order in Annexure-4. 4. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, namely, the Board of Gover¬nors, Sainik School Society, and the Principal, Sainik School, Bhubaneswar, respectively, have filed a joint counter affidavit mainly raising the following objections : (1) The petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ peti¬tion. (2) The Sainik School being registered under the Societies Registration Act does not come within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. (3) This Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the affairs of the educational institution. 5. Let us now first deal with the question whether the petitioner has got any locus standi to file this writ petition. The petitioner claims himself to be an elected representative of the parents and has filed this application on representative capacity as he represents in the Local Board of Administration. Learned counsel for the opposite parties vehe¬mently argues that though the petitioner has filed this writ petition on purported representative capacity and has been elected as a representative in the Local Board of Administration, he has no authority to file this writ petition and sue the insti¬tute. The opposite parties further argue that assuming that there is existence of an association of the parents of the students, which, in fact, does not exist, being not a registered society, has no legal status to file the writ petition. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to a decision of the apex Court in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India. AIR 1981 SC 298 , where an objection was raised that the petitioner being an unrecognised association could not maintain a writ petition. Overruling the objection, the apex Court held that : “....... Whether the petitioners belong to a recognized union or not, the fact remains that a large body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached this Court under Art. 32. Overruling the objection, the apex Court held that : “....... Whether the petitioners belong to a recognized union or not, the fact remains that a large body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached this Court under Art. 32. Our current processual jurisprudence is not of individu¬alistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad-based and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice through ‘class ac¬tions’, ‘public interest litigation’, and ‘representative pro¬ceedings’. Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking reme¬dies in Courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirma¬tion of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesi¬tation in holding that the narrow concept of ‘cause of action’ and ‘person aggrieved’ and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions. It must fairly be stated that the learned Attorney-General has taken no objection to a non-recognised association maintaining the writ petitions.” Hence, in view of the aforesaid decision of the apex Court, this writ petition being filed by one of the representatives of the parents of the students who have taken admission in the Sainik School and having a common grievance against enhancement of fee structure in the school, it can be safely said that a writ petition can be maintained on behalf of other parents by the petitioner. Hence, the objection of the opposite parties regard¬ing the locus standi of the petitioner does not absolutely hold good. It is well settled by the apex Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 , that a member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from acts or omission of the State or public authority, which also causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals. In such cases, a member of the public having suffi¬cient interest can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such act or omission. Hence, the rule of locus standi has been given a liberal interpretation and in view of the interpretation so made by the apex Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition on behalf of the parents of the students whose interest, according to the petitioner, is jeopardised by the action of the opposite parties. 6. 6. The next question is whether the Sainik School is amena¬ble to writ jurisdiction or not. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Chander Mohan Khanna, v. N.C.E.R.T., AIR 1992 SC 76 , wherein it was held that National Council of Educational Research and Training was not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitu¬tion and further that there must be deep and pervasive control over the State to bring that institution within the compass of Article 12. In our view, this argument is not sustainable in view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of All India Sainik Schools Employees Association v. The Defence Minister-cum-Chairman, Board of Governors, Sainik School Society, AIR 1989 SC 88 , wherein it was held that Sainik School being ‘State’ was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the plea of the opposite parties that Sainik School is not amenable to writ jurisdiction fails. 7. The next question that arises for determination is wheth¬er this Court can interfere in the proposed revision of fee structure which is a matter of policy and not available to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to a decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India AIR 1999 Delhi 124, wherein it was held that private schools can generate higher revenue and that it cannot be said that the private recognised schools cannot charge higher fee. However, what cannot be done that the private recog¬nised schools in the garb of power to generate higher revenue to pay higher salaries to the employees, cannot levy unreasonable exhorbitant amounts towards fees and charges. In this decision it was also held that the right to pay higher salary does not mean right to pay unreasonably exhorbitant amount and what is such an amount would depend upon facts of each case. We have been taken through the counter affidavit vividly by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite parties. In this decision it was also held that the right to pay higher salary does not mean right to pay unreasonably exhorbitant amount and what is such an amount would depend upon facts of each case. We have been taken through the counter affidavit vividly by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite parties. Our attention is drawn to a decision in the case of Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645 , wherein it was held that admissions and charging of capitation fees in private unaided/aided recognised/affiliated educational institutions conducting profes¬sional courses such as medical, engineering courses are subject to conditions and regulations of the State. Capitation fee was defined as charging or collecting amount beyond that is permitted by law. It is not out of place to mention here that this case was referred to by the apex Court while rendering the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 5 SCC 220 , wherein the Court was pleased to modify the scheme so framed in Unni Krishnan’s case (supra). Now in the present case, we have to see whether there is an unreasonable hike in the fee structure. As it appears from the counter affidavit, due to increase in the cost of maintenance of students, fee structure has been revised in pursuance of Annexure-4 which is not a phenomenon confined to the State of Orissa. There is an enhancement of fees in all the Sainik Schools spread over the country. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner has been discriminated abso¬lutely does not arise. In pursuance of our direction, the bal¬ance-sheets and revised budget estimates were produced before the Court by the opposite parties to substantiate their stand. On perusal of the aforesaid balance-sheets, we find that there is always an excess expenditure over the income which warrants further fund for fooding, lodging and other expenses that would be spent over the students. Further, opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in their counter affidavit in para 25 have stated : “25. ....... As per the budget provision of Sainik School, per capita fees, diet charges is about Rs. 25,500/- whereas per capita mandatory incurring expenditure is more than Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Further, opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in their counter affidavit in para 25 have stated : “25. ....... As per the budget provision of Sainik School, per capita fees, diet charges is about Rs. 25,500/- whereas per capita mandatory incurring expenditure is more than Rs. 30,000/- per annum. The comparative per capita income and expenditure chart of last 4 years is as follows : INCOME YEAR 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Collection of fees and scholarship in lieu of fees Rs. 11,000/- Rs. 14,000/- Rs. 14,000/- Rs. 25,500/- EXPENDITURE YEAR 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Establishment Rs. 12,359/- Rs. 15,134/- Rs. 20,100/-Rs. 24,900/- Training Rs. 326.50/- Rs. 669.63/- Rs. 365.99/-Rs. 448.33/- Food Rs. 3,410/- Rs. 3,787/- Rs. 4,765/- Rs. 5,550/- Total Rs. 16,095.50 Rs. 19,590.63/- Rs. 25,230.99 Rs. 30,898.33/- Now the petitioner argues that there are certain other expenses and if those expenses like electricity, water, repair, mainte¬nance of furniture, office stationery etc. are deducted from the expenses, then there will be no further burden on the parents to pay more towards fees. The aforesaid argument was advanced on the ground that for the maintenance of the school, the institution gets its grant from the State and the Central Governments. In our considered opinion, it would not be prudent on our part to exam¬ine the correctness of the accounts so maintained in course of transaction and produced before us being authenticated by the Principal. On the other hand, Shri Misra also states that it would neither be possible on the part of the parents of the students who are in the lower income group to pay the amount or withdraw the students at the mid-session. We are not prepared to accept the aforesaid contention because of the simple reason that decision to enhance the fee was not taken ex parte by the author¬ities, as alleged by the petitioner. Before taking the decision the authorities have taken into confidence the parents’ associa¬tion and the petitioner being a representative of the parents’ association also participated and consented to the same. Before taking the decision the authorities have taken into confidence the parents’ associa¬tion and the petitioner being a representative of the parents’ association also participated and consented to the same. Hence, where there is a serious financial problem in the school, as it appears from Annexure-F, so filed by the school authorities, and the State Government is not able to meet the total deficit in the school, in our considered opinion, this is not a case where this Court should decide whether the expenses in the balance-sheets have been inflated or whether the balance-sheet is correct or incorrect. That apart, in the Local Board Administration meeting which the petitioner attended representing the parents, he had not raised any objection to the enhancement of fees. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot raise the same objection by way of this writ petition. 8. We find no illegality or irregularity in the enhancement of fees and, therefore, refuse to interfere in the enhancement of the fee structure which is solely within the domain of the management of the Sainik School. The writ petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P. C. NAIK, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.