JUDGMENT A. P. LA VANDE, J.:- By order dated 17-9-2007 passed in Special Leave Petition preferred by N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences against the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1529/03 the Apex Court requested learned Chief Justice of Bombay High Court to see that Writ Petition No. 1529/03 and analogous writ petitions are disposed of within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order and in case it was not possible for the Nagpur Bench to dispose of these writ petitions within the stipulated time schedule the learned Chief Justice shall transfer all these petitions to the main seat and see that within the same time schedule the petitions are disposed of. The order of the Apex Court was received by the Registry of this office on 8-10-2007. In view of the said order of the Apex Court Writ Petition No. 1529/03 along with the above six analogous writ petitions were taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Vidya Shikshan Prasarak Mandai, Nagpur runs two Colleges, Medical and Dental viz., N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Science and Research and Dental College and Research Centre at Nagpur Writ Petition No.4429/04 has been preferred by N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Vidya Shikshan Prasarak, Mandai (for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) and other six petitions have been preferred by the students who had taken admission for M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. •Courses during the year 2002-2003. The petitioners in these six petitions will be referred to as "the Students" for the sake of convenience. 3. Briefly, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present petitions are as under: The Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No.649/97 had directed the State Governments to hold common entrance test for admission to Health Sciences Courses. Accordingly, the State of Maharashtra has been conducting common entrance test (CET) from the year 1999 onwards for admission to the said courses. For the purpose of conducting CET for admissions to the said courses for the year 200203 the State of Maharashtra issued Notification dated 1-2-2002. Accordingly, the State of Maharashtra has been conducting common entrance test (CET) from the year 1999 onwards for admission to the said courses. For the purpose of conducting CET for admissions to the said courses for the year 200203 the State of Maharashtra issued Notification dated 1-2-2002. By the said Notification, the Director of Medical Education Research (for short "The DMER") who was appointed as the competent authority by Resolution dated 21st December, 2001 was directed to carry out admissions of Health Science Courses as per the Admission Regulations. The Admission Regulations for the academic year 2002-03 were published in a Brochure styled as MH-CET 2002. The said brochure contains the entire programme relating to admission process. It provides information as regards availability of seats, colleges and the manner in which the seats were to be distributed. The details of selection process have been laid down in Regulation No.9. 4. The DMER issued Notification dated 5-3-2002 stating that the position of the seats for the MH-CET 2002 was likely to change due to reduction or increase in the capacity of Colleges by Central Councilor addition/deletion of any college. The DMER also declared that the seats increased during the academic year 2002-03 shall also be filled up in accordance with the Regulations. In terms of Regulations 9 to 15 the competent authority could conduct several rounds of selection process as it deemed fit and thereafter declare a cut off date to close the admission process. For the year 2002-03 four rounds were conducted for completion of admission to various courses. The competent authority after selecting the candidate for admission issued selection letter and the selected candidate had to report and join the College and get himself/herself admitted within 7 days. The selected candidate was permitted to opt for two changes which could be in the type of seat i.e. merit or payment or from one college to another or from one course to another course. For the academic year 2002-03 the admission process commenced on 15-2-2002 and concluded with the completion of 4th round which was held on 9-2-2003. In terms of 2002 Regulations, the fees payable for merit seat and payment seat were Rs.14,950/- and Rs.l,26,500/- respectively for M.B.B.S. Course and Rs.9,200/- and Rs.86,250/ - respectively for B.D.S. Course. 5. For the academic year 2002-03 the admission process commenced on 15-2-2002 and concluded with the completion of 4th round which was held on 9-2-2003. In terms of 2002 Regulations, the fees payable for merit seat and payment seat were Rs.14,950/- and Rs.l,26,500/- respectively for M.B.B.S. Course and Rs.9,200/- and Rs.86,250/ - respectively for B.D.S. Course. 5. All the students in the above writ petitions were selected against the merit seats under the admission process conducted by the competent authority and on the basis of the selection letters they initially joined the other colleges. All the students opted to change the colleges to which they were admitted to the colleges run by the Management. All the students joined the colleges run by the Management after the Judgment was delivered by the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 AIR sew 4957, that is, after 31-10-2002. The Management asked the students to pay fees of Rs. 1,26,500/- for M.B.B.S. Course and Rs.86,250/- for B.D.S. Course and insisted upon giving undertakings by the students as well as by the guardians/parents. The students and their respective guardians/parents gave undertakings and paid Rs. 1,26,500/- and Rs.86,250/- as demanded by the Management of Medical College and by the Management of B.D.S. College respectively. 6. On 12th, 17th and 18th December, 2002 the DMER and the State government issued communications to the Management bringing to its notice that admissions for the academic year 2002-03 were to be made on the basis of the Regulations and the seats were to be filled in as per the Regulations. It was also brought to the notice of the Management that the Apex Court in the Judgment of T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) had issued detailed guidelines for regulating admissions, fees structure etc. of Professional Colleges; however, since the admission process was more than half completed the directions issued by the Apex Court could not be put into the policy framework and since the students were already given promise of admission on the basis of 2002 Regulations the said Regulations should be honored. The Management was to admit the students recommended by DMER as per the Regulations. 7. The Management was to admit the students recommended by DMER as per the Regulations. 7. After the Apex Court delivered the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) various education institutions, Union of India and various State Governments filed proceedings in several Courts and the various interim orders came to be passed which were challenged before the Apex Court. These matters were considered by the Bench of Five Judges in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003(6) see 697). The Constitution Bench of Apex Court while answering the questions framed by it directed that in order to give effect to the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Case the State Governments should set up Committees to regulate the fees structure and the admission process and the fees fixed by the Committee would be binding on the colleges for a period of 3 years. The State Government was further directed to frame appropriate regulations, if not already framed, to deal with the institutions charging capitation fees so that private institutions could be appropriately penalised and face prospects of losing their recommendation/affiliation. 8. The College run by the Management had 50 sanctioned seats in the MBBS Course. The Management had applied to the Central Government for increase of seats in MBBS course from 50 to 100 for the academic year 2002-03. On 16-11-2002 the Government of India granted approval for increase of seats from 50 to 100 for the said course. The State Government by communication dated 30-11-2002 intimated the Management that it had permitted increased strength of 50 seats and declared that the strength of the College would be 100 seats. 9. On account of increase in the seats the DMER directed the Management to admit the students in pursuance of 2002 Regulations and on the basis of the merit list prepared in terms of 2002 Regulations. The State Government further directed that the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) shall be implemented from the subsequent year i.e. 2003-04. Pursuant to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy the State of Maharashtra has constituted “Pravesh Niyantran Samiti” and “Shikshan Shulk Committee.” The Shikshan Shulk Committee has been approving the fees that can be charged by different Medical Colleges including one run by the Management from the academic session 2003 onwards. Pursuant to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy the State of Maharashtra has constituted “Pravesh Niyantran Samiti” and “Shikshan Shulk Committee.” The Shikshan Shulk Committee has been approving the fees that can be charged by different Medical Colleges including one run by the Management from the academic session 2003 onwards. The State Government has prepared a draft bill pursuant to the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education to enact suitable laws for regulating the fees, admission etc. in private professional colleges. As already stated above, all the students who have filed the above writ petition have taken admissions in the colleges run by the Management after 31-10-2002. All these students were earlier admitted against the merit seats in different colleges. The students claim that their admission to the college run by the Management was in terms of 2002 Regulations and as such the college could have charged only the fees fixed by the Regulation for the merit seats and could not have charged the fees fixed for payment seats. 10. In Writ Petition Nos.1529/03, 15712004,97212005,2420/2003 and 2201/2003 the students have challenged the action of Management in charging fees payable for payment seats and have further sought refund of excess fees collected by the College/ Management. 11. The Management has filed Writ Petition No.4429/04 and has assailed the notification dated 1-2-2002 issued by the State of Maharashtra to the extent it is inconsistent with the Judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and also the communication issued by the State of Maharashtra and the DMER dated 12-12-2002, 17-12-2002 and 18-12-2002. The Management has also sought directions to pay the fees as settled by the Committee within a period of one month. 12. We have heard Mr. Dastane and Mr. Haq, learned counsel for the students, Mr. G.C. Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the Management/College, Mrs. Joshi learned A.G.P. for State of Maharashtra and DMER and Mrs. Khade, learned counsel on behalf of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. The parties have also filed written submissions in support of their case. 13. Mr. Dastane and Mr. Haq, learned counsel for the students, Mr. G.C. Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the Management/College, Mrs. Joshi learned A.G.P. for State of Maharashtra and DMER and Mrs. Khade, learned counsel on behalf of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. The parties have also filed written submissions in support of their case. 13. Mr. Dastane, appearing on behalf of the students in majority of the petitions submitted that the students were selected under 2002 Regulations against merit seats and they had initially joined different colleges within the stipulated time and since the Regulation permitted change of College the students opted to join the Colleges run by the Management. According to Mr. Dastane, change of College was permissible in terms of Regulation No.9.9 of the Brochure. According to Mr. Dastane, the admission of the students to the Colleges run by the Management was in terms of 2002 Regulations and, therefore, the College/ Management was not entitled to charge higher fees than the those fixed in terms of the 2002 Regulations. Mr. Dastane further submitted that the College was not entitled to charge higher fees arbitrarily as per its own choice. By placing reliance upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy of Education Mr. Dastane submitted that the Colleges were not entitled to charge higher fees than what was fixed in tenns of 2002 Regulations unless the appropriate machinery and regulatory body was created and made operational by the State of the Maharashtra. He further submitted that the State Government had taken categorical stand that the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Case shall not be made applicable to the admission process for the year 2002-03 which was already midway. According to Mr. Dastane, the Scheme framed pursuant to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan's case could not seize to operate immediately from the date of Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and the State Government was entitled to take a decision that the admission process for the year 200203 would be in terms of the Scheme already framed. Dastane, the Scheme framed pursuant to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan's case could not seize to operate immediately from the date of Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and the State Government was entitled to take a decision that the admission process for the year 200203 would be in terms of the Scheme already framed. He further submitted that till the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy (supra) which was rendered on 148-2003 the State Government had neither set up any regulatory machinery nor framed any Regulations and as such for the year 2002-2003 the Management/College could not charge fees as per its own sweet will According to Mr. Dastane the directions given and the law laid down by the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case were not operative and workable till 14-8-2003 i.e. till the date of Judgment in the case of Islamic Academy. Mr. Dastane further submitted that in exercise' of powers conferred under Article 162 read with Article 144, the State Government was entitled to take decision that the Judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation shall be made applicable from 2003 onwards and the on going admission process for the year 2002-03 should be continued in terms of 2902 Regulations. 14. Mr. Dastane further urged that the students had acted upon the promise given to them under 2002 Regulations and acting upon the promise the students had changed their position by seeking admissions in the College run by the Management. According to Mr. Dastane the students were entitled to change the College in terms of Regulation No.9 and on the basis of the said Regulation they had opted to change the Colleges and had taken admission to Colleges run' by the Management. Mr. Dastane further submitted that admissions in respect of additional 50 seats which were granted to the College from 16-11-2002 were also governed by 2002 Regulations as is clear from the Notification dated 3-12-2002 issued by the DMER. According to Mr. Dastane, the Management/College did not challenge the Notification dated 3-12-2002 but on the contrary admitted students even after the Notification dated 3-12-2002 and, therefore, the College/Management is now estopped from making any grievance in that behalf. Mr. According to Mr. Dastane, the Management/College did not challenge the Notification dated 3-12-2002 but on the contrary admitted students even after the Notification dated 3-12-2002 and, therefore, the College/Management is now estopped from making any grievance in that behalf. Mr. Dastane further submitted that those students admitted in terms of 2002 Regulations to the College run by the Management prior to 31-10-2002 have paid fees in terms of 2002 Regulations and, therefore, calling upon the students who are the petitioners herein to pay higher fees would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the College is discharging public duty of imparting professional education and is controlled by the statutory authorities like University, Medical Council of India and the State Government and, therefore, is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. According to Mr. Dastane, the Management/College is not entitled to insist upon the payment of higher fees and they are liable to charge fees as fixed by 2002 Regulation and, therefore, the necessary sequitur is that the Management/College is not entitled to charge higher fees from the students. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dastane relied upon the following authorities: i) T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2002 AIR SCW 4957. ii) Islamic Academy of Education and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2003)6 Supreme Court Cases 697. iii) Unni Krishnan J.P. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 S.C. 2178 . iv) T.M.A. Pai Foundation & others Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355 . v) Ashok Kumar Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P., (1997)5 SCC 201 . vi) Pradipkumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002)5 SCC 111 . vii) Unreported Judgment of this Court dated 15-7-2004 in W.P. No.7267/03, Nirmal Narayan P. Rao and another Vs. Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State and another. 15. Mr. Haq, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the students/petitioners in Writ Petition No.220l/03 adopted the submissions made by Mr. Dastane. He further urged that the College/Management had no right to unilaterally increase the fees in respect of the students admitted in the year 2002-03 in the absence of any mechanism to fix the fees. According to Mr. 15. Mr. Haq, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the students/petitioners in Writ Petition No.220l/03 adopted the submissions made by Mr. Dastane. He further urged that the College/Management had no right to unilaterally increase the fees in respect of the students admitted in the year 2002-03 in the absence of any mechanism to fix the fees. According to Mr. Haq, the law laid down and the directions given in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) are prospective in nature and, therefore, the law and Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case could not be made applicable in respect of the admissions for the year 2002-03. 16. Mrs. Joshi, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and the DMER submitted that the Management/College was not entitled to charge higher fees than those fixed in terms of 2002 Regulations. According to Mrs. Joshi, in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education, the State of Maharashtra had constituted Shikshan Shulk Committee, for the first time, during the year 2003-04 which has been now fixing the fees payable by different private unaided Professional Colleges. According to Mrs. Joshi, in the absence of any machinery or the body fixing the fees which the Colleges could charge the action of the College/Management in insisting upon payment of higher fees is illegal and as such cannot be sustained. Mrs. Joshi placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education (supra) in support of her submissions. 17. Mrs. Joshi also submitted that the students are entitled to the relief sought for on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estopped, since acting upon the representation made by the State Government that 2002 Regulations were applicable the students had opted to take admissions to the Colleges run by the Management and, thereby changed their position and, therefore, the doctrine of promissory estopped is clearly attracted in the present case. 18. Mr. 18. Mr. Singh appearing on behalf of the Management at the outset submitted that the students who have filed petitions chal1enging the action of the Management have not given in the petitions the details about the Col1ege they have joined, the type of seats which were allotted and the fees paid by them and whether as per the Rules they had cancel1ed their admissions and, therefore, the students are guilty of suppression of material facts and on this count only the petitions are liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel further submitted that the Management is entitled to charge fees in terms of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation from 31-10-2002 since admittedly the students have sought admissions to the Colleges run by the Management after 31-10-2002. Mr. Singh, therefore, submitted that the Management is entitled to charge fees in terms of the said Judgment which entitles the Management to fix its own fees structure. According to Mr. Singh, Admission Rules laid down in the Regulations are not applicable after 31-10-2002 and after 31-10-2002 the Management was entitled to fill in the vacant seats by charging fees fixed by the Management. According to Mr. Singh, additional 50 seats in the Medical College run by the Management were sanctioned by the State Government on 30-11-2002 and the Management was well within its right to fill up the said seats in terms of the Judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai by charging fees fixed by the Management. He has further submitted that till date the State Government has not framed any Rules pursuant to the directions given by the Apex Court and as such no mandamus can lie against the Management at the instance of the students in the absence of any Rules having been framed. According to Mr. Singh since the Scheme framed by the State Government in terms of the Judgment in Unni Krishnan's has been held to be unconstitutional, in view of the Judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation, the students are not entitled to enforce the Regulations framed by the State Government for the academic year 2002-2003 and that too after 31-10-2002. The learned counsel further submitted that the students and their parents having given undertakings to pay the fees as fixed by the College are not entitled to challenge the fees fixed by the College. The learned counsel further submitted that the students and their parents having given undertakings to pay the fees as fixed by the College are not entitled to challenge the fees fixed by the College. In support of his submissions, Mr. Singh placed reliance on the following Judgments; i) T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002)8 SCC 481 ; ii) Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003)6 Supreme Court Cases 697; iii) Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical Colleges and others V s. State of Maharashtra and others, 2004(2) Bom.C.R. 208 ; iv) Modern School Vs. Union of India and others, (2004)5 SCC 583 : [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 894]; v) Bramho Samaj Education Society and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others, 2004(6) SCC 224 ; vi) Sail & another Vs. A wadesh Singh and others, (2001)10 SCC 621 ; vii) S.H. Motor Transport Co. Vs. Motilal & others AIR 1965 Bombay 24 and; Viii) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) By Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs., AIR 1994 SC 853 . 19. We have carefully perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned couns61 for the rival parties. We have also perused the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties as well the written submissions filed by them. 20. In the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation, the Apex Court answered 11 questions in paragraph 449 of the Judgment. In paragraph 449(G) the Apex Court held that there could be appropriate mechanism to ensure that no capitation fee is charged and profiteering is not resorted to by the Management. In the said judgment the Apex Court recognised the rights of the Professional Unaided Private Educational Institution to determine the scale of fee that it can charge from the students. However, the Apex Court further held that the fees structure should be rational and the Management is not entitled to charge capitation fee and further that there should be no profiteering. The Apex Court further recognised the right of the Management to have reasonable surplus for the furtherance of education. The Apex Court further held that the appropriate machinery can be devised by the State or University to ensure that no capitation fee is charged and there is no profiteering. 21. The Apex Court further recognised the right of the Management to have reasonable surplus for the furtherance of education. The Apex Court further held that the appropriate machinery can be devised by the State or University to ensure that no capitation fee is charged and there is no profiteering. 21. The Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation has been interpreted by Five Judge Judgment delivered in Islamic Academy of Education (supra). In the said Judgment the Apex Court, inter alia, dealt with the rights of the Private Unaided Professional Colleges to fix their own fee structure and to fill in the seats and the percentage thereof. While dealing with the issue of fixing of fee structure the Apex Court held that there can be no fixing of a rigid fee structure by the State. Each Institution must have right to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide better facilities for the benefit of the students. The institution must also be able to generate surplus which must be used for betterment and growth of that educational institution. The Apex Court directed the Government/concerned authority to set up in each State the Committee headed by the retired High Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice of that State and consisting of other members in order to give effect to the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case subject to the rider that total members of the Committee should not exceed five. The educational institution is bound to 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 its scrutiny. The Committee shall then decide whether the fees proposed by that institution are justified and do not amount to profiteering or charging capitation fee. The fees fixed by the committee shall be binding for a period of years, at the end of which period the Institution would be at liberty to apply for revision. Once the fees are fixed by the Committee, the Institute cannot charge either directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. The fees fixed by the committee shall be binding for a period of years, at the end of which period the Institution would be at liberty to apply for revision. Once the fees are fixed by the Committee, the Institute cannot charge either directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. If any other amount is charged, under any head or guise, the same would amount to charging of capitation fees. The Government was also asked to consider framing appropriate regulations, if not already framed, where under the Institution charging capitation fees or indulging in profiteering could be penalised and face the prospect of losing its recognition/affiliation. In so far as the admission to unaided, minority or non minority professional colleges is concerned the Apex Court observed as follows in para 16. “16. That brings us to the question as to how the management of both minority and non-minority professional colleges can admit students in the quota allotted to them Undoubtedly the majority judgments has kept in mind the sad reality that there are a large number of professional colleges which indulge in profiteering and/or charging of capitation fees. It is for this reason that the majority judgment provides that in professional colleges admission must be on the basis of merit. As has been rightly submitted, it is impossible to control profiteering/charging of capitation fees unless it is ensured that the admission is on the basis of merit. Also, as has been rightly pointed out, if a student is required to appear at more than one entrance test it would lead to great hardship. The application fees charged by each institute, even though they may be only Rs.500 to Rs. 1000 for each institute, would impose a heavy burden on the students who will necessarily have to apply to a number of colleges. Further, as has been rightly pointed out, students would have to arrange for transport from and to and stay at various places if they have to appear for individual tests conducted by each college. If a student has to go for test to each institute it is possible that he/she may not be able to reach, in time, the venue of a test of a particular institute. In our view what is necessary is a practical approach keeping in mind the need for a merit based selection. If a student has to go for test to each institute it is possible that he/she may not be able to reach, in time, the venue of a test of a particular institute. In our view what is necessary is a practical approach keeping in mind the need for a merit based selection. Paragraph 68 provides that admission by the management can be by a common entrance test held by itself or by the State/University. The words common entrance test clearly indicate that each institute cannot hold a separate test. 22. We shall now appreciate the rival submissions in the light of the above two judgments of the Apex Court as well as other judgments cited by the rival parties. We shall make reference only to those Judgments which are relevant for deciding the issues involved in these petitions. 23. In so far as the submission made by Mr. Singh that the petitions are liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts by the students is concerned, we find no merit in the said submission. According to Mr. Singh, the students have not given details as to the Colleges they have joined, the dates on which they were admitted to the said Colleges and whether they had paid fees in terms of the regulations etc. We find that there is sufficient material on record to establish that all the students who have filed the above petitions were selected in terms of 2002 Regulations and got admissions against merit seats to different colleges. It is pertinent to note that the DMER who had undertaken the exercise of selection has not disputed that all the students were selected on merit and had sought admission to different colleges in terms of 2002 Regulations. The students had exercised option to change the Colleges in terms of the 2002 Regulations and had chosen to join the Colleges run by the Management. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of Mr. Singh that there is suppression of material facts on the part of the students dis-entitling them from seeking any extraordinary relief from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We fail to understand as to how the Management could attribute charge of suppression of material facts to the students who were selected in terms of 2002 Regulations and opted to join the Colleges run by the Management. 24. We fail to understand as to how the Management could attribute charge of suppression of material facts to the students who were selected in terms of 2002 Regulations and opted to join the Colleges run by the Management. 24. We shall now deal with the main issue involved in the petitions i.e. whether the management was entitled to charge higher fees than the fees fixed by the State Government in terms of 2002 Regulations by placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case. No doubt in T.M.A. Pai's case and in the case of Islamic Academy of Education the Apex Court has recognised the right of the management to fix rational fee structure subject to certain restrictions more particularly spelt out in the Judgment in Islamic Academy of Education delivered on 14-8-2003 and in the said Judgment the Apex Court, inter alia, directed the State Government/concerned authority to constitute the Committee to fix the fees that can be charged by different professional educational institutions. It is not disputed that the State of Maharashtra has constituted Shikshan Shulk Committee in the year 2003 pursuant to the Judgment in Islamic Academy of Education which has been fixing the fee structure in respect of the different professional educational institutions in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education. It is, therefore, clear that during the academic year 2002-03 there was no body constituted to regulate the fee structure and it was only in the year 2003, for the first time, that the State Government constituted Shikshan Shulk Committee. We, therefore, fail to understand as to how the management could fix the fees payable by the students in the absence of any regulatory body. The management has not placed any material before us to substantiate as to how they could charge Rs. 1,26,00/- for M.B.B.S. and Rs.86,250/- in respect of B.D.S. in the absence of any mechanism to fix the fees they could be charged by the institutions during the year 2002-03. We are of the considered opinion that the Management could not unilaterally fix the fees and insist upon students to pay the same. 25. In so far as the argument of Mr. We are of the considered opinion that the Management could not unilaterally fix the fees and insist upon students to pay the same. 25. In so far as the argument of Mr. Singh that additional 50 seats were sanctioned to the College, for the first time, on 30-11-2002 i.e. after the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case and, therefore, the management was entitled to charge fees by placing reliance upon the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case is concerned, we find no merit in the said submission. Firstly, although the seats were sanctioned in November, 2002 the increased seats were obviously for the academic session 2002-03 and, therefore, mere fact that the additional 50 seats were sanctioned after the Judgment was delivered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case would not entitle the management to charge the fees at its own sweet will. In our opinion, the said seats ought to have been filled in by following 2002 Regulations inasmuch 2002 Regulations were clearly attracted in respect of the said seats. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the DMER had published notification dated 3rd December, 2002 declaring that the said 50 seats in N.K.P. Salve Medical College were available in 3rd round of selection process for admission to Health Sciences courses which was scheduled from 10th December, 2002. It is pertinent to note that the management has not challenged the said Notification dated 3-12-2002. It is, therefore, too late in the day for the management to contend that it could charge the fees fixed by it in respect of the said additional 50 seats. Moreover, the DMER had also declared the position of the seats was likely to change due to reduction or increase in the capacity of colleges and that the seats increased during 2002-2003 shall be filled in accordance with 2002 Regulations. 26. It is also pertinent to note that the competent authority by communications dated 17-12-2002 and 18-12-2002 had brought it to the notice of the College that it could only charge fees in terms of 2002 Regulations. The college/management instead of complying with the directions chose to admit the students by• charging higher fees than those permitted by 2002 Regulations without even challenging the communication till 2004 and it was only in the year 2004 that the management challenged the said communications by filing Writ Petition No.4429/04. The college/management instead of complying with the directions chose to admit the students by• charging higher fees than those permitted by 2002 Regulations without even challenging the communication till 2004 and it was only in the year 2004 that the management challenged the said communications by filing Writ Petition No.4429/04. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the action of the management in charging higher fees than those fixed by 2002 Regulations is patently illegal and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 27. The issue as to whether the management could charge higher fees in respect of the seats which were sanctioned after 3110-2002 is also covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 15-7-2004 in W.P. No.7267/03 (unreported) Nirmal Narayan P. Rao and another Vs. Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State and another. The said petition was filed by the second year engineering students of SIBS Graduate School of Technical Education situated in Navi Mumbai. By this said petition the petitioners had challenged notice dated 23-9-2003 issued by the College calling upon the students who had passed First Year Engineering Examination to pay fees of Rs. 49,600/- on the ground that there was no distinction between the payment and free seats. While dealing with the submission made on behalf of the College that the College was entitled to charge higher fees in view of the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case this Court negative the contention advanced on behalf of the Management and observed in para 9 as follows: “Ms. Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent college submitted that the scheme framed in Unni krishnan's case has been held as wholly unconstitutional in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case and, therefore, all the rules, regulations and directives issued by the AICTE, Mumbai University and DTE requiring any affiliated institution to persist and continue with the classification into merit and payment seats have become inoperative, and, therefore, the college management was within its right in enhancing the fees of the merit students. In our opinion the submission of the learned counsel is totally misconceived. In our opinion the submission of the learned counsel is totally misconceived. There is nothing in the Judgment of the 11 Judge Bench in T.M.A. Foundation or the subsequent judgment in Islamic Academy Foundation to indicate that the students who have been already admitted against merit seats to engineering course would be required to pay enhanced fees in the midst of the course or the management of private engineering colleges would be entitled to charge enhanced fee contrary to the express provision~ of the relevant rules and regulations. In fact as noticed earlier the rules for admission categorically provided that the category of students once admitted against merit seats shall not be changed till the completion of the course. These rules were accepted by the 2nd Respondent and the students were admitted as per the rules. Pursuant to the direction given by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case the AICTE has framed Interim Policy and as per the Interim Policy Regulation dated 7-3-2003 existing students cannot be subjected to any change and continues to be governed by the same fee structure. In our opinion, the 2nd Respondent is bound by the said Interim Policy." (Emphasis supplied) 28. Although the said Judgment is in relation to admission in Engineering College and right of the management to fix the fees payable for the period 2003 onwards by the students. admitted during the year 2002-03 was in issue the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court with which we respectfully concur is squarely applicable in the present case. In the said Judgment the Division Bench has observed that there is nothing in the Judgment of T.M.A. Pai's case or the subsequent Judgment in Islamic Academy of Education to indicate that the students who were already admitted during. 2002-2003 against the merit seats to Engineering Course would be required to pay enhanced fees in the midst of the course. In our opinion, 2002 Regulations are applicable in respect of additional SO seats sanctioned to the College and, therefore, the Management is not entitled to charge higher fees. We also find merit in the submission of Mr. Dastane and Mrs. Joshi that the students are entitled to succeed on the principle of promissory estoppel. In our opinion, 2002 Regulations are applicable in respect of additional SO seats sanctioned to the College and, therefore, the Management is not entitled to charge higher fees. We also find merit in the submission of Mr. Dastane and Mrs. Joshi that the students are entitled to succeed on the principle of promissory estoppel. The students had acted upon the promise given to them that their admission is in terms of 2002 Regulations and acting upon the said promise they had changed their positions by seeking admission in the Colleges run by the management which was permissible in terms of the 2002 Regulations, more particularly Regulation No.9. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is clearly attracted and it would be inequitable and illegal to call upon the students to pay higher fees after they exercised option of changing the Colleges in terms of 2002 Regulations. 29. We also find considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Dastane that the Management cannot be permitted to charge two different sets of fees in respect of the students admitted after 31"10-2003 and prior to 31-102002 since in both cases the students were admitted under 2002 Regulations. Such a course if permitted to be undertaken by the College would be totally arbitrary and, therefore, unsustainable in law. In our opinion, in fact, the students were admitted to different Colleges against merit seats in terms of 2002 Regulations prior to 31-102002 and they had exercised option to change the Colleges they had joined which was permissible in terms of 2002 Regulations. 30. The Management has also challenged the decision of the State Government that the Judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation shall be made applicable from academic year 2003-04 and the admission process during the year 2002-03 should be in terms of 2002 Regulations. No doubt, Article 144 of the Constitution requires the authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court and, therefore, the State Government is expected to take all necessary steps to give effect to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also well settled that the State Government in exercise of executive powers under Article 162 can issue executive instructions where the State has powers to make laws when there exists a vacuum or the laws are not framed. It is also well settled that the State Government in exercise of executive powers under Article 162 can issue executive instructions where the State has powers to make laws when there exists a vacuum or the laws are not framed. The State Government is entitled to fill the gaps to give effect to and to make the laws operational. The Apex Court in the case State of Sikkim Vs. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia & others, (1991)4 see 243 has observed that when statutory provisions which are unworkable and inoperative cannot achieve its objectives, such provisions are non-est till made operational. It is the operative statutory provisions which have the effect of ousting executive power of the State from the same field. When in a peculiar situation the statutory provisions could not be operated there was no bar for the State Government to act in exercise of its executive power. Although in the present case the fact situation is not identical, the fact remains that the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case did not provide for any machinery to regulate the fees that can be charged by unaided professional institutions and it was only on 148-2003 for the first time in the case of Islamic Academy of Education (supra) the Apex Court directed constitution of Committee to regulate the fees that can be charged by unaided professional colleges. Therefore, in our opinion, the State Government is justified in taking a stand that the admission for the year 2002-03 to professional colleges would be governed by 2002 Regulations since there was no regulatory body to fix fees which was, for the first time, directed to be constituted by the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education. Merely because the Apex Court has recognised the right of the Management to fix rational fees structure the same would not entitle the Management to fix the fees arbitrarily from 31-10-2002 till the fees structure is determined by the Committee set up in terms of the Judgment in Islamic Academy of Education. We find no illegality or infirmity in the decision taken by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Article 162 read with Article 144 to apply the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case only from the year 2003 onwards. In Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. We find no illegality or infirmity in the decision taken by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Article 162 read with Article 144 to apply the Judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case only from the year 2003 onwards. In Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. State of D.P. (1997)5 see 201 the Apex Court has held that it should be taken into consideration as to ability to effectuate check the new rule adopted in the overruling case without doing injustice and whether the likelihood of its operation substantially burdens the administration or retards the purpose to be taken into account. Therefore, it is permissible in law to postpone the operation of the decision considering the facts and circumstances obtained in each case so that smooth transaction of the operation of the newly laid law takes place without unduly affecting the rights of the people who acted upon the law operated prior to the date of the Judgment overruling the previous law. Such postponement of operation, therefore, is neither void ab initio nor nullity nor void able. 31. In so far as the submission on behalf of the Management that the writ petitions filed by the students seeking mandamus against the management/college are not maintainable in the absence of any rules are being framed and on account of the fact that the scheme framed pursuant to the Judgment in Unni Krishnan (supra) has no force of law and, therefore, not enforceable is concerned; we find no merit in the said submission. 2002 Regulations were framed pursuant to the decision in Unni Krishnan's case. Though the scheme has been held as unconstitutional in T.M.A. Pai's case the fact remains .that till effective machinery is provided for regulating the fees that can be charged by unaided professional institutions, the management/college was bound to enforce the said 2002 Regulations. As stated above, the State Government has also taken decision to implement 2002 Regulations for the year 2002. 03 and as such for the enforcement of the said Regulations, in our opinion, the petitions filed by the students are maintainable. The students who had been selected against the merit seats in terms of 2002 Regulations have every right to contend that college/management is bound to follow 2002 Regulations as framed by the State Government and directions issued by the DMER. The students who had been selected against the merit seats in terms of 2002 Regulations have every right to contend that college/management is bound to follow 2002 Regulations as framed by the State Government and directions issued by the DMER. The managements running Medical/B.D.S. colleges discharge public duties and as such the writ petitions at the instance of the students against the college/management for enforcement of obligation to follow the Regulations framed by the State Government are maintainable. We, therefore, hold that the writ petitions filed by the students for seeking enforcement of 2002 Regulations and the directions issued by the DMER to follow 2002 Regulations are maintainable. We, therefore, find no merit in the argument made on behalf of the college/management that the writ petitions filed by the students are not maintainable. 32. In so far as the undertakings given by the students and their respective parents/ guardians are concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the college/management could not have collected higher fees than those fixed by 2002 Regulations and therefore, the college/management could not have insisted upon the said undertakings agreeing to pay higher fees than the fee fixed in terms of 2002 Regulations. The college/management was bound to collect the fees in terms of 2002 Regulations. The said undertakings were obtained by the management contrary to 2002 Regulations and in defiance of directions issued by the Government and the DMER. Therefore, the students and their respective parents/ guardians are required to be discharged of the said undertakings which were obtained as a condition precedent for securing admissions to the colleges. Accordingly, the students and their parents/guardians are discharged from the said undertakings. 33. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions filed by the students are liable to be allowed and the petition filed by the management is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition nos.1529/2003, 2201/2003,2420/2003,157/2004 and 972/2005 are allowed and writ petition no. 4429/2004 filed by the management is dismissed. The management/college is directed to refund the excess fees collected from the students after adjusting the fees payable by the students for the remainder of the course and refund the balance to each of the students/petitioners within a period of eight weeks. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in writ petitions 1529/2003, 2201/2003, 2420/2003, 4851/2003, 157/2004 and 972/2005. Rule is discharged in writ petition no.4429/2004. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in writ petitions 1529/2003, 2201/2003, 2420/2003, 4851/2003, 157/2004 and 972/2005. Rule is discharged in writ petition no.4429/2004. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.