1. This petition is by the parents of the children who are students of the Sainik School Nagrota. They have challenged the order dated 18-06-1999 raising tuition fee from Rs. 14000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per annum with effect from academic session 1999-2000. The petitioners have challenged upward revision of tuition fee inter-alia on the grounds that the increase does not take into account the economic condition of the parents and the object for which the Sainik School was established It has also ignored the fact that the State Government has refused to increase the rate of the scholarship to the middle income group. The increase, it is further alleged is also not based on the actual expenditure being incurred by the School 2. The stand of the respondents is that the fee has been raised on the basis of recommendation of Expert Committee comprising of Financial Advisor, Joint Secretary Training and Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence and Joint Education Advisor, Ministry of Defence and Joint Educational Advisor, Department of Education and Education Secretaries of 8 States. It was on the basis of this recommendation that the tuition fee has been raised from Rs. 14,000/- to Rs 20,000/- with effect from academic year 1999-2000. Further stand of the respondents is that the total income from the fee and scholarship in respect of the school prior to being only Rs.64 lakhs as against the actual expenditure of Rupees one crore. The revision is justified to cover the deficit. The contention of Mr. Thakur is that the increase is arbitrary and has no nexus with the object for which the School was set up. He also argued unless the income and expenditure statement is furnished by the respondents the increase cannot be permitted. His further argument is that State Government has not disclosed its stand regarding enhancement of scholarships and therefore, the petitioners are not liable to pay the increased fee. Mrs. Neeru Goswami has produced a copy of the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa in case No. 10859/ 88 dated 31-01-2000 in a writ petition titled Member representative of Parents of the Students of Sainik School Bhubaneshwar Vs. State of Orissa & Ors in which the order impugned in this petition was challenged. Mrs. Neeru Goswami has produced a copy of the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa in case No. 10859/ 88 dated 31-01-2000 in a writ petition titled Member representative of Parents of the Students of Sainik School Bhubaneshwar Vs. State of Orissa & Ors in which the order impugned in this petition was challenged. .The Bench dismissed the petition observing as under;- œThe next question that arises for determination is whether 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 Vs. Union of India, AIR 1999 Delhi 124, wherein it was held that private schools can generate higher revenue and that it can not be said that the private recognised schools can not charge higher fee. However, what cannot be done that the private recognised 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 unreasonable exhorbitant amount and what is such an amount would depend upon facts of each case. We have been taken through the counter or 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. Vs. 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 professional course such as medical, engineering course 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 Vs. 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. 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 absolutely does not arise....� The Bench also examined the revised budget estimate while holding that the govt. was not able to meet the deficit in the school. The court further held that fee has been raised in all the 18 Sainik Schools throughout India. 3. The argument of Mr. Thakur is that judgment is based on the budget estimates which the management of the Sainik Schools in Orissa has produced. Since no such estimates have been produced in this case, reliance argued the learned counsel cannot be placed on the judgment. However, as the question of enhancement of tuition fee in all the Sainik Schools throughout the country has been examined by the High Court of Orissa in quite some details, it is not necessary to examine budget estimate for every school. The Committee set up by the Board has examined the financial position of all the schools, before recommending enhancement of tuition fee and mess fee This fact is stated in para IV and V of the brief history given in the return filed by the respondents. These are reproduced below:- (IV) That Board of Governors Sainik Schools Society held its meeting on 28th March 1997 and unanimously agreed to revise the tuition fee from Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 14,000/- P. A. with effect from academic season, 1997-98 and also directed that a Committee under the Chairmanship of Financial Advisor (Defence Services) of the Ministry of Defence be constituted to study the scheme of award of scholarships and the funding of Sainik Schools. Accordingly, a Committee headed by F.A. (DS) and comprising of Joint Secretary (Trg), Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, Joint Educational Advisor. Department of Education and Education Secretaries of 8 State Governments deliberated on the matter. Accordingly, a Committee headed by F.A. (DS) and comprising of Joint Secretary (Trg), Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, Joint Educational Advisor. Department of Education and Education Secretaries of 8 State Governments deliberated on the matter. (V) That the recommendations of the above committee were examined and with the approval of Raksha Mantri, Chairman, Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society decided to implement the revised fee with effect from academic session, i.e. 1999-2000�. Similarly the expenditure on messing has also been enhanced from Rs.17.50 to Rs.20/- per day which is quite reasonable. Besides there is a specific averment about the income and the expenditure which shows the shortfalls of Rs.30 lacs. The fee increase therefore, cannot be said to be unjustified. This, however, is apart from the fact that the decision of High Court of Orissa (supra) is quite exhaustive and has dealt with all the issues raised in this petition. I have thus no hesitation in holding that I am in agreement with the decision and this petition is without any merit. It is dismissed accordingly.