Judgment :- (PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.61, Law (LU) Department, dated 19.3.2004, quash the same and pass such further orders.) The Honourable Chief Justice: All these petitions pertain to admission and fee structure of the Central Law College, Salem and can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The Central Law College (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the petitioner College' for the sake of convenience) is the only recognised Private Law College in the State of Tamil Nadu, which is run on a self-finance basis without any grant from the State Government. The College is approved by the Bar Council of India and was affiliated to the Madras University and is now affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University. The petitioner College was established in the year 1984. 3. The matter has a checkered history and a series of writ petitions have been filed in this court. W.P.Nos.8667, 16983, 28522 and 28526 of 2004, 26046 and 29362 of 2005, 13121 and 21307 of 2006 are filed by the Management of the College, while W.P.Nos.36990 and 38030 of 2005 are filed by two of the students. 4. On 06.1.1994, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.5, Law (Legal Studies) Department purporting to implement the Scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan svs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993-1-Scale-291) for the purpose of admission in the petitioner College. The said Government Order was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.14416 to 14418 of 1994. The Supreme Court granted interim stay on condition that the College shall admit students on its own strictly in the order of merit from among those applying for admission and to determine merit exclusively on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. Finally, S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.14416 to 14418 of 1994 were allowed in view of the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case reported in 2002-8-Scale-1 of the Eleven Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court, in which the Scheme framed in Unnikrishnan's case was overruled. Finally, S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.14416 to 14418 of 1994 were allowed in view of the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case reported in 2002-8-Scale-1 of the Eleven Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court, in which the Scheme framed in Unnikrishnan's case was overruled. The Supreme Court quashed the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.5, Law (Legal Studies) Department, dated 06.1.1994, dated 06.1.1994 leaving it open to the State Government to issue any fresh Notification if it was legally competent to do so. 5. In Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 ), a Bench of Five Judges interpreted the earlier decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Case, cited supra, and issued directions for setting up Committees for admission and for fixing fee structure in Professional Colleges. Based on the decision in Islamic Academy's Case, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.61, Law (Legal Education) Department, dated 19.3.2004, purporting to direct Dr.Ambedkar Law University to conduct Common Entrance Test and Counselling Session for admission of students in the petitioner College for the Academic Year 2004-2005 with a further direction that the Government quota of 50% of the students would be sent from that list and that the management quota of 50% students should also be drawn from such list prepared by the Government under that Examination. The said G.O. was challenged by the petitioner College in W.P.No.8667 of 2004 and an interim arrangement was ordered by the learned single Judge that the Entrance Examination shall be conducted by the petitioner Management for 50% of seats through its Agency and the petitioner shall communicate the procedure to be adopted for conducting the Examination and admission to the Committee. 6. In the meantime, the Government issued G.O.Ms.NO.68, Higher Education (J2) Department, appointing Mr.Justice Raman Committee for Fee Fixation in various Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. On the same day, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.69, Higher Education (J2) Department, appointing Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani Committee for selection of students to various Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu (Law College was not included in either of the G.Os.). On the same day, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.69, Higher Education (J2) Department, appointing Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani Committee for selection of students to various Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu (Law College was not included in either of the G.Os.). On 26.4.2004, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.93, Law (Legal Studies) Department, directing that the petitioner shall fill up the Management Quota of 50% of seats by following the rule of reservation of the State Government and from out of the merit list of the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the Law University and the remaining 50% of the seats shall be filled up through the Common Entrance Test and that the College may approach the Committee to be constituted for admission in case of any dispute over the fixation of 50% management quota. On 14.5.2004, the Government issued another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.207, Higher Education Department including the Law Secretary in the Committee for fee fixation when it relates to the Private Law College. The G.O.Ms.No.207 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.16983 of 2004. In the meantime, the petitioner College had made a representation to Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani Committee explaining the procedure adopted by it for admission which was made through a Committee consisting of Mr.Justice G.Ramanujam (retired), Mr.K.M.Marimuthu, former Vice Chancellor of Bharathidasan University, Mr.S.Francis Soundarraj, retired Joint Secretary (Law), Government of India and Mr.T.P.Sadasivam, retired Joint Secretary (Law), Government of Tamil Nadu. Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani Committee vide letter dated 25.5.2004, returned the representation by saying that its jurisdiction was limited to matters mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 19.3.2004 and it was restricted only to Engineering and Medical Colleges. The learned single Judge, vide order dated 28.6.2004, stayed the operation of G.O.Ms.No.207, dated 14.5.2004. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.441, Higher Education Department, dated 30.7.2004, purporting to include the Secretary, Law Department, Government of Tamil Nadu as a member of the Admission Committee in matters relating to admission to Law Colleges and thereby made the Admission Committee applicable to Law Colleges as well. This G.O. was also challenged by the petitioner College in W.P.No.28523 of 2004. This G.O. was also challenged by the petitioner College in W.P.No.28523 of 2004. G.O.Ms.No.93, Law (Legal Studies) Department, dated 26.4.2004 was also challenged by the petitioner management in W.P.No.28522 of 2004 and on 20.10.2004 an interim order was granted by this Court that for the Academic Year 2004-2005 the petitioner College would be permitted to admit students in its quota from the list of students selected by the petitioner College's Selection Committee without doing the exercise of conducting Examination of its own. 7. For the Academic Year 2005-2006, the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University vide letter dated 05.8.2005, advised the petitioner College to approach the appropriate Authority for fixing the Fee Structure. This communication was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.26046 of 2005 and interim injunction was granted by the learned single Judge on 16.8.2005 restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to collect fees on par with Government Law Colleges. The said order was wrongly interpreted by the University to mean that the petitioner could collect the fees as collected by the Government Law Colleges at Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore, Tirunelveli and Trichy, while what was contended in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was that it should be permitted to collect fees as done by the University in its own self-financing College at Chinglepet. This directive of the University was impugned by the College in W.P.No.29362 of 2005 and an interim injunction came to be granted on 20.9.2005 and the College was permitted to collect the fees as fixed by the College. At that stage, two writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.36990 and 38030 of 2005 were preferred by two students questioning the fixation of the fees by the College. In those petitions, interim injunction was granted subject to the condition that Rs.12,000/- per annum should be paid by the students. The writ appeal filed against the said order of the learned single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench. 8. On 28.4.2006, learned single Judge of this Court issued a direction in W.P.No.28522 of 2004 permitting the petitioner College to make a representation with regard to admission quota in the College and a direction was issued to the Government to consider the same in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537 ) and to pass orders within ten days thereafter. The Government without considering the representation in the light of the decision in P.A.Inamdar's case, cited supra, directed the petitioner not to go ahead with the admissions for the Academic Year 2006-2007 till a decision is taken in the matter. Consequently, on 28.4.2006, Admission Notification was issued by the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University for various Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu including 50% of the seats in the petitioner-College for the Academic Year 2006-2007. This Notification was impugned by the petitioner College in W.P.No.13121 of 2006. In the meantime, the petitioner College, on the basis of the stay order, admitted students without any Government quota for the Academic Year 2006-2007. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.21307 of 2006 praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the letter of the Government dated 27.6.2006 and forbear the respondent from in any manner interfering with the petitioner's right to admit students of the 5-Year and 3-Year B.L. Courses for 100% annual intake capacity from the Academic Year 2006-2007 onwards. In that petition, certain interim orders were passed in August 2006. 9. In the meantime, some time in August 2006, the students of the Law College, especially the students admitted in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 batches, under government quota, went on strike and there were incidents of violence inside and outside the college campus. As a result of the continuance of strike, the College authorities were constrained to close the College. Pursuant to the order passed by this court, the College was reopened, but the College Authorities were again constrained to close the College because of the fresh acts of violence in the campus. By a further order, this Bench directed the College to take back the students on their furnishing a written undertaking that they will not indulge in any further agitation. In pursuance of the said order, around 180 students have submitted written undertakings before the college Authority that they are willing to join the College. The Management has now agreed to reopen the College immediately after the Deepavali vacation and to take back those students who have furnished the necessary undertaking and to take extra classes for them to complete their studies before the Semester Examination, which is scheduled to be held in the first week of December 2006. 10. The Management has now agreed to reopen the College immediately after the Deepavali vacation and to take back those students who have furnished the necessary undertaking and to take extra classes for them to complete their studies before the Semester Examination, which is scheduled to be held in the first week of December 2006. 10. On behalf of the petitioner College, Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner College is the only Private Law College in the State of Tamil Nadu and its admission procedure is fair and transparent and the College has been functioning for the past 22 years without any complaint in the matter of selection. He further submitted that the Law College was not contemplated to be included within the Scheme in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy's Case, cited supra, and hence, the selection procedure or fee fixation procedure contemplated in Islamic Academy's case ought not to be applied to the petitioner College. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar's case, cited supra, the State Government cannot compel any private college to surrender any portion of its seats especially when it is a self-financing college being run without any grant-in-aid from the Government. Hence, the petitioner College should be free to admit 100% of the students on its own selection procedure on merits. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the fee that is being fixed in the petitioner College is reasonable and is not commercialization of education and hence the freedom of the petitioner College to fix such reasonable fee and to collect the same, ought not to be interfered with. 11. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Advocate General, who represented the State, fairly conceded that the State has no power to compel a Private Un-aided College to surrender any portion of its seats in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar's case, cited supra. He further submitted that the State has passed a comprehensive Enactment on the admission procedure and fee structure viz., Tamil Nadu Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006 and this Act is awaiting the assent of the President under Article 254 of the Constitution. However, he submitted that Law College is not included in the said Enactment. 12. However, he submitted that Law College is not included in the said Enactment. 12. Mr.K.Sakthivel, learned counsel appearing for the students and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the striking students, however, submitted that in view of the judgment in P.A.Inamdar's case, the State has every power to regulate all colleges imparting education at graduate level and above. Learned counsel submitted that the State of Tamil Nadu has already enacted the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 and this Act is applicable to Law Colleges as can be seen from the definition of Educational Institution under section 2(b) of the said Act and, therefore, an appropriate direction be issued to the State Government to fix the fees of the Law College as per Section 4 of the said Act. 13. In P.A. Inamdar's case, cited supra, the Seven Judges' Bench has categorically ruled that the Scheme evolved in Islamic Academy's Case to the extent it allows the States to fix quota for seat-sharing between the management and the States on the basis of local needs of each State, in the unaided private educational institutions of both minority and non-minority categories, is not legal and that part of the judgment in Islamic Academy does not lay down the correct law and runs counter to Pai Foundation. The Court also held that the policy of reservation cannot be enforced by the State nor any quota or percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriated by the State in a minority or non-minority unaided educational institution. It is further held that if there is only one institution imparting education in any one discipline then such institution is entitled to frame its own admission procedure, which is fair and transparent and no committee need be constituted in respect of such institution as per the decision in Islamic Academy's Case. 14. In the light of the law laid down in P.A.Inamdar’s Case, the various G.Os. of the Government viz., G.O.Ms.No. 61, dated 19.3.2004, G.O.Ms.No.93 dated 26.04.2004, G.O.Ms.No.441, dated 30.7.2004 and the directions issued by the Government and the Law University pursuant to those G.Os. are liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. In the light of the law laid down in P.A.Inamdar’s Case, the various G.Os. of the Government viz., G.O.Ms.No. 61, dated 19.3.2004, G.O.Ms.No.93 dated 26.04.2004, G.O.Ms.No.441, dated 30.7.2004 and the directions issued by the Government and the Law University pursuant to those G.Os. are liable to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner College has adopted the admission procedure through a Committee consisting of retired Judge of this Court and other experts in the field and it is not the case of the State or the students that the procedure of admission followed by the college is not transparent or fair. In the circumstances, W.P.Nos.8667, 28522 and 28526 of 2004, 13121 and 21307 of 2006 are liable to be allowed. 15. As far as fee structure is concerned, the directions given by the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy's Case are confined only to Engineering, Medical and Technical Institutions and they are not applicable to the Law Colleges. G.O.Ms.No.207, dated 14.5.2004 was issued by the Government pursuant to the directions contained in Islamic Academy's case. However, this G.O. was stayed by this Court and the College was allowed to fix its own fees. The College has fixed the fee of Rs.17,125/- for the Five Years Course and Rs.17,025/- for the Three Years Course per annum. There is no material brought on record to show that the fees fixed by the College is excessive or exorbitant or that the College is indulging in profiteering or commercialization. It is brought to our notice that the fees for the School of Excellence run by the Dr.Ambedkar Law University is far more than the fees fixed by the petitioner College. The petitioner college has produced on record a chart showing the fees structure of private law colleges in other States in order to show that the fee charged in the petitioner college cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner College submitted that in order to give a quietus to this on going controversy and to put an end to the strike by the students, the College is prepared to reduce the fees to Rs.8000/- per annum for the Five Years Course as well as for the Three Years course for those students admitted during the Academic Years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 under the Government quota and who have not paid the fees. He submitted that as far as the students who have already paid the fees are concerned, the excess fees will be adjusted towards the fees for the next year and wherever such adjustment is not possible, the excess amount shall be refunded to the concerned student. We make it clear that this concession would be given only to the students admitted under Government quota during the Academic Years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and will not be cited as a precedent in any other case. We also make it clear that in view of the judgment in P.A.Inamdar's case, the State has got every power to regulate the fees of the Law College and in future if it is found that the college is indulging in profiteering it will be open for the Government to take appropriate action under the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992. 17. Learned counsel for the University stated that in case the College conducts extra classes and the students are able to achieve minimum of 66% attendance, in that event, the University will have no objection to permit the students to appear for the Semester Examination, which is scheduled to be held in December 2006. The State is directed to give adequate police protection to the students who have given undertakings to the College Authorities and who wish to attend the classes in case such need arises. The students are given time upto 30.11.2006 to pay the fees at the reduced rate, i.e. Rs.8000/- per annum. In case the fees even at the reduced rate are not paid by the students, they will not be entitled to undertake further studies in the college and it will be open for the College Authorities to strike off their names from the Register of the College. 18. In the result, W.P.Nos.8667, 16983, 28522 and 28526 of 2004, 26046, 29362 of 2005 and 13121 and 21307 of 2006 are allowed and as far as the two writ petitions filed by the students, viz., W.P.Nos.36990 and 38030 of 2005 are concerned, they will have to pay the fees in terms of our order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.