Judgment ( 1. ) This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No. 1041/2006 as identical question is involved in both the petitions. ( 2. ) The prayer in the petition is for quashing the order dated 19-11-2005 Annexure P-1 whereby the respondent No. 3 has asked the petitioner to deposit the dues within 5 days and also order dated 19-10-2005 Annexure P-4 whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/-alongwith interest @ 18% per annum for the delayed payment commencing from 1-1-2003. ( 3. ) Short facts of the case are that petitioner got admission in respondent No. 3 College in the year 2001 in MBBS course against Management Quota. It is alleged that as per the brochure issued by respondent No. 3 College for the year 2001, the seats for MBBS course were divided in three categories which are as under:- (i) Free seats. (ii) Payment seats. (iii) NRI/NRI sponsored/foreigner students. ( 4. ) Further case of the petitioner is that 15% of the total management seats were reserved in NRI quota. It is alleged that as per brochure, the fee for payment seat was Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lac Ten Thousand) per year while fee for NRI seat was Rs. 5,25,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Twenty Five Thousand) per year. It is alleged that since sufficient number of students were not available in NRI quota, therefore, as per Clause 17 of the Rules for admission in MBBS course in Ruxmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical College, Ujjain, the seat was termed as deferred seat and was allotted to the petitioner treating as payment seat. It is alleged that at the relevant time the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- for full course for payment seat in MBBS course which was deposited by petitioner vide receipt Annexure P-3. It is alleged that the respondents are demanding tuition fee of Rs. 5,25,000/- for extra one year and also demanding for interest @ 18% per annum. The demand is under challenge in the petition. ( 5. ) It is alleged that in compliance of the orders of Honble Apex Court in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 issued directions relating to constitution of Committee. The demand is under challenge in the petition. ( 5. ) It is alleged that in compliance of the orders of Honble Apex Court in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 issued directions relating to constitution of Committee. The relevant observations are as under:- "We direct that in order to give effect to the judgment in T.M.A. Pai case the respective State Governments/concerned authority shall set-up, in each State, a committee headed by a retired High Court Judge who shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State. The other member, who shall be nominated by the Judge, should be a Chartered Accountant of repute. A representative of the Medical Council of India (in short "MCI") or the All India Council for Technical Education (in short "AICTE"), depending on the type of institution, shall also be a member. The Secretary of the State Government in charge of Medical Education or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall be a member and Secretary of the Committee. The Committee should be free to nominate/co-opt another independent person of repute, so that the total number of members of the Committee shall not exceed five. Each educational institute must place before this Committee, well in advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure. Along with the proposed fee structure all relevant documents and books of accounts must also be produced before the Committee for their scrutiny. The Committee shall then decide whether the fees proposed by that institute are justified and are not profiteering or charging capitation fee. The Committee will be at liberty to approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee binding for a period of three years, at the end of which period the institute would be at liberty to apply for revision. Once fee are fixed by the Committee, the institute cannot charge either directly or indirectly and other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. If any other amount is charged, under any other head or guise e.g., Donations, the same would amount to charging of capitation fee." "In compliance of directions of Honble Apex Court a Committee was constituted by the State Government for fixation of fees for professional institutions (medical).Vide order dated 31-5-2004 the committee fixed the fee for respondent No. 3 College as Rs. 1,64,000/- per year. 1,64,000/- per year. In the said report it has also been observed that while processing the proposal it is found that some the colleges have collected the fee more than the fees prescribed by the State for the year 2003-04. The appropriate action may be taken by the Government against such College. The amounts, over and above the Judges Committed fixed shall be refunded by the institutions." ( 6. ) Mrs. Meena Chaphekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Clause 17 of the Rules of respondent No. 3 College, if payment seat remains vacant after two counselling, then it will be termed as deferred seat and College Selection Committee have a right to fill the seat. It is submitted that since the seat was not filled by NRI student, therefore, the same was given to petitioner as payment seat and petitioner has deposited the requisite fee as agreed i.e., Rs. 18,00,000/-. ( 7. ) Reply has been filed by the respondent No. 3. In the reply it is alleged that the petitioner was given admission under the Management Quota and total fee of MBBS course was fixed by the College as Rs. 18,37,800/- for four and half year. It is further alleged that free seats were to be filled-in by Director, Medical Education. Similarly the vacant seats were also required to be filled-in by Director, Medical Education. It is alleged that for the payment seat, fee was Rs. 1,26,500/- per year. It is alleged that petitioner was required to specify the category under which petitioner was given admission. It is alleged that petitioner is student of NRI Sponsored Seat. Total fee in respect of NRI Sponsored Seat was Rs. 23,62,500/-. It was further alleged that at the time of giving admission a scheme was sponsored by the respondent No.3 College for the students that if any student opt to pay two years fees at the time of admission (i.e., Rs. 10,50,000/-) and a sum of Rs. 8,37,500/-) in the II year, then the fee for one year i.e., Rs. 5,25,000/- shall be waived for that student. It was further alleged that it was also proposed in the scheme that if two installments of tuition fee is not paid on or before its due date, then the respondent No. 3 would be entitled to collect the waived amount of Rs. 5,25,000/-. 5,25,000/- shall be waived for that student. It was further alleged that it was also proposed in the scheme that if two installments of tuition fee is not paid on or before its due date, then the respondent No. 3 would be entitled to collect the waived amount of Rs. 5,25,000/-. It is further alleged that out of 15 seats, 12 students including petitioner availed option and as per said option the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,37,800/- in two installments; firstly, Rs. 10,50,000/- at the time of admission; secondly, Rs. 8,37,500/- during II year of the course. It was further alleged that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- at the time of admission but failed to deposit of Rs. 8,37,500/- in second installment in time. Hence, answering respondent has re-called the waived amount of Rs. 5,25,000/-. It is prayed that petition be dismissed. ( 8. ) From perusal of the record, it is evident that petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 18,37,500/-. It appears that the respondent No. 3 College treating the petitioner as N.R.I. student has issued the notice of demand. In the matter of P. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SCW 3923 while dealing with N.R.I. seats the Honble Apex Court has observed as under:-"128. Here itself we are inclined to deal with the question as to seats allocated for Non- Resident Indians (NRI, for short) or NRI seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to certain number of students under such quota by charging a higher amount of fee. In fact, the term NRI in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get admissions. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen its level of education and also to enlarge its educational activities. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen its level of education and also to enlarge its educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get reunited with Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilized bona fide by the NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, the merit should not be given a complete go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form collected from such NRIs, should be utilized for benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the society, whom, on well defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidized payment of their fee. To prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed. So long as the State does not do it, it will be for the Committee constituted pursuant to Islamic Academys direction to regulate." ( 9. ) Looking to the decision given by Honble Apex Court it is evident that petitioner was not NRI student. Admission was given to the petitioner against the vacant NRI seat. Since the NRI student was not available, therefore, it was deferred seat as per Rule 17 of the rules for admission of respondent No. 3. So far as charging of tuition fee is concerned, no order of admission has been placed on record by respondent No. 3. However, the amount of fee which is deposited by the petitioner indicates that the seat was not treated as payment seat. If petitioner would be given admission against payment seat, then the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 6,05,000.00 only but since petitioner has agreed for payment of Rs. However, the amount of fee which is deposited by the petitioner indicates that the seat was not treated as payment seat. If petitioner would be given admission against payment seat, then the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 6,05,000.00 only but since petitioner has agreed for payment of Rs. 18,37,500.00, therefore, the validity of payment of Rs. 18,37,500.00 as fee is not being examined by this Court. However, so far as payment of rest of Rs. 5,25,000.00 and the payment of interest are concerned, it is not permissible, as the petitioner has already deposited a huge amount while admission of petitioner was neither as NRI student nor as NRI sponsored student and also the demand is not unjust but also unreasonable. ( 10. ) In view of this, petition is allowed. The demand raised by respondent No. 3 vide Annexures P-1 and P-4 are quashed. Since the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 18,37,500/-, therefore, the respondent No. 3 shall not charge any further fee for MBBS course from the petitioner. ( 11. ) With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of Writ Petition allowed.