Judgment : The prayer in these writ petitions are to quash the G.O. Ms.No.218 School Education (U1) Department, dated 30.8.2007 issued by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to constitute a Fee Committee as contemplated in the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3724 : (2003) 6 SCC 697 and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 3226 : (2005) 6 SCC 537 : (2005) 3 MLJ 158, to prescribe reasonable fee structure for the Private Self-Financing Teacher Training Institutions in the State of the Tamil Nadu, within a time frame. 2. The case of the petitioner Association in W.P.No.16685 of 2008 is that the petitioner association is a registered association under the Societies Registration Act (T.N. Act 27 of 1975) with registration No.59 of 2005. All the members of petitioner association are Private Self-Financing Teacher Training Institutes, granted recognition by the NCTE. It main object is to promote and safeguard the interest of the Teacher Education. According to the petitioner, the association was making representations to the appropriate forum in the matters of common interest. The Private Self-Financing Teacher Training Institutes, who are the members of the petitioner association are granted recognition under Sections 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and got staff approval from the second respondent. All the members of the petitioner association are functioning either from the academic year from 2004-2005 or from the subsequent academic years. The petitioner in W.P.No.16558 of 2008 is also Self-Financing Private Teacher Training Institute, granted recognition by NCTE and got staff approval from the second respondent. 3. As per the admission procedure evolved by the State Government in all the Self-Financing non-minority Teacher Training Institutes, 50% of the seats are to be filled up by the Government through counseling and remaining 50% of the seats are to be filled up by the respective management, which is called “Government Quota” and “Management Quota” respectively. Insofar as the linguistic and religious minority Teacher Training Institutions are concerned, 30% of the seats are to be filled up through the Government quota through counseling and 70% of the seats are to be filled up under the management quota. 4. Insofar as the linguistic and religious minority Teacher Training Institutions are concerned, 30% of the seats are to be filled up through the Government quota through counseling and 70% of the seats are to be filled up under the management quota. 4. According to the petitioners, the fee structure for the Self-Financing Teacher Training Institutions are to be fixed by the Committee to be constituted by the State Government in compliance with the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2003 SC 355 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 , Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (supra), and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (supra). In the said decisions, it is declared that a Committee of each State headed by a retired High Court Judge is to be constituted for fixing fee structure based on the input received by them from the institutions as well as from the Government and the fee should be fixed on the individual institution basis. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the State Governments and Union Territories to appoint a Committee for this purpose. Tuition fee and other fees can be collected only on the basis of the prescription of fees by the said Committee. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the Committee constituted by the State of Tamil Nadu is not in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court for fixing of fees for the Self-Financing Teacher Training Institution. According to the petitioners, about 600 Private unaided Teacher Training Institutions are collecting fees without uniformity and as far as the Government seats filled up through counseling a sum of Rs.3,500/- from each students is collected by the department and only a sum of Rs.1,500/- is ordered to be paid to the concerned institutions as special fee. No other fee is fixed by the Government to be collected by the institutions from the individual students either from the students admitted through single window selection or admitted under the management quota. No other fee is fixed by the Government to be collected by the institutions from the individual students either from the students admitted through single window selection or admitted under the management quota. According to the petitioners in the union Territory of Puducherry, there are about 25 Self-Financing Teacher Training Institutions, and the said Government is following the judgments of the Supreme Court by appointing a Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge and the said Committee fixed fee to be collected from each students by the Self-Financing Teacher Training Institutions of Puducherry. It is also stated in the affidavit that G.O.Ms.No.107 School Education Department dated 17. 2002 which was issued for the purpose of collection of fee by the Government Institutions and aided institutions prescribed admission fee of Rs.3,500/- and other fee of Rs.1,500/- and the admission fee collected from the students are directed to be remitted into the Government Account and the Petitioner management filed writ petitions before this Court for issuing writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from implementing the said Government Order and also to quash the consequential circular issued by the second respondent. The said Government order as well as circular was stayed by this Court in a batch of cases and therefore insofar as the management quota students are concerned, the petitioner institutions are not remitting the said sum of Rs.3,500/-into the Government Account towards admission fee. It is also stated in the affidavit that without following the judgments of the Supreme Court, the Government issued the impugned G.O.Ms. No.218 dated 30.8.2007 and appointed a Committee consisting five members, which is not headed by a retired High Court Judge. The said Committee is ordered to hold office for a period of three years. The grounds raised in the writ petitions to challenge the said order is that the said Committee is constituted in contravention of the judgments of the Supreme Court solely relying upon the regulations of the NCTE issued in the year 2002, which was framed based on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 , which was subsequently overruled by a Constitution Bench in T.M.A. Paid Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) case. 6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that as per the NCTE Regulation, 2002, notified on 16. 6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that as per the NCTE Regulation, 2002, notified on 16. 2002, the Committee was constituted by the State Government and the regulation is having statutory effect as it was framed under Section 12(h) read with Section 32(2)(d)(v) of the NCTE Act, 1993 (Act No.73 of 1993), and the respondents are entitled to follow the same and constitute the Committee and there is to illegality in the said order. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the judgments of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioners to constitute a Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge is not applicable insofar as the Teacher Training Institutions are concerned, since these institutions are not professional colleges. The respondents have already constituted a Committee through the impugned Government Order, which is in compliance with the NCTE regulation of the year 2002 ad the said Committee is having statutory backing and respondents pray for dismissal of the above writ petitions. 7. Mr. N.R. Chandran and Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned senior counsels appearing for the petitions, on behalf of Mr. R. Sureshkumar, learned counsel submitted that constitution of the Fee Committee relying upon the NCTE Regulations, 2002, without the presence of the retired High Court Judge is contrary to the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra), Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (supra) and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (supra). The learned senior counsel also submitted that the said NCTE Regulation having been framed pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court made in the case of J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), when the payment seat, free seat and NRI quota seats concept were in vogue and as the said payment seat and free seat concept is not in existence now and therefore the first respondent is not justified in relying upon the said regulation, particularly when the said judgment of the Supreme Court was overruled by the Constitution Bench decision T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra), except with regard to the right to free education upto the age of 14 years the learned senior counsels further submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court, Fee Committee is constituted by the Government of Puducherry headed by a retired High Court Judge and the said Fee Committee fixed the fee structure to be collected from the students of Unaided Teacher Training Institutions, located in the Union Territory of Puducherry and during the pendency of the writ petition since the respondents have not fixed any prescribed fee to be collected by the management, this Court passed an interim order to collect Rs.23,000/- from the students admitted for the year 2008-2009 and the said interim order was also accepted by the respondents for the academic year 2008-2009 and therefore after setting aside the impugned Government Order, the first respondent may be directed to constitute a Committee in terms of the Supreme Court decisions for fixing appropriate fee within a time frame. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Government Constituted the Committee through the impugned Government order based on the statutory regulation framed by the NCTE in the year 2002, which was framed as per the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra). 8. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Government Constituted the Committee through the impugned Government order based on the statutory regulation framed by the NCTE in the year 2002, which was framed as per the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra). The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the issue involved in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) case was in relation to the professional colleges and the decision of the Supreme Court viz., Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (supra) and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (supra) case are also applicable only to the professional self-financing colleges and the said directions cannot be applied to the Teacher Training Institutions, which are not professional Colleges. He further submitted that in the decision Modern School v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 583 , the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, with regard to the fixation of fee and therefore the impugned Government order issued by the first respondent has got a statutory backing viz., the NCTE Regulation, 2002, and there is no necessity to constitute a Fee Committee, headed by a retired High Court Judge as contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioners. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties. 10. The question to be decided in these writ petitions is as to whether the Fee Committee Constituted by the first respondent through G.O.Ms.No.218 School Education Department dated 30.8.2007 is valid. 11. For proper appreciation, the impugned Government Order is extracted hereunder: “Government of Tamil Nadu Abstract Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training-Committee for Determination of fee to be charged by Self Financing Teacher Training Institutes-Constituted Orders-Issued. School Education (U1) Department G.O.(Ms) No.218 Dated : 30.8.2007 Read: 1. G.O.(Ms) No.107, S.E., dt 17. 2002 2. G.O. (ID) No.111, S.E.(U1) dt.17. 2003 3. NCTE., Notification dt.16. 2002 4. DTER Lr. Rc.No.7279/C3/02 dt.26. 2006 and 8. 2006. ORDER In G.O.(Ms) No.107, School Education (U1) Department, dated 17. 2002, orders were issued for the collection of tuition fees as Rs.3,500/- and other charges as Rs.1,500/-from the students in district Institutes of Education and Training, Government/Government Aided Teacher Training institutes. 2. 2003 3. NCTE., Notification dt.16. 2002 4. DTER Lr. Rc.No.7279/C3/02 dt.26. 2006 and 8. 2006. ORDER In G.O.(Ms) No.107, School Education (U1) Department, dated 17. 2002, orders were issued for the collection of tuition fees as Rs.3,500/- and other charges as Rs.1,500/-from the students in district Institutes of Education and Training, Government/Government Aided Teacher Training institutes. 2. The National Council for Teacher Education has issued detailed instructions on the procedure for determination of fee to be charged by the Self Financing Teacher Training institutes determined by the High level Committee constituted by the State Government. Based on the above instructions, the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training has requested the Government to constitute a High Level Committee to determine the fees for collection from the students by the Self Financing Teacher Training Institutes. 3. After careful consideration of the request of the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, the Government constitute a High Level Committee with the following members to look after the issues relating to the fee chargeable by self Financing Teacher Training Institutes from the students. 1. Additional Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9… Chairman 2. Secretary to Government Finance, Dept., or his nominee.. Member 3. Representative of the Department dealing with Physical Education, if such a department exists to be nominated by the State Government… Member 4. Experts in .(a) Institutions Finance… Member .(b) Cost Accountancy and.. Member .(c) Economics to be nominated the State Government…Member 5. The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai-6… Member Secretary 3. The above committee shall be treated as I Class Committee for purpose of TA and DA. 4. The members of the Committee other than ex.Officio member will hold office for a period of three years. (By order of Governor) M. Kutralingam, Secretary to Government” 12. It is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the above said Committee is constituted under the NCTE Regulation, 2002, notified on 16. 2002. The applicability of 2002 Regulations is stated in Regulation 2, which reads as under: “2. (By order of Governor) M. Kutralingam, Secretary to Government” 12. It is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the above said Committee is constituted under the NCTE Regulation, 2002, notified on 16. 2002. The applicability of 2002 Regulations is stated in Regulation 2, which reads as under: “2. Applicability.- These regulations shall, for the time being, apply to institutions which offer courses or training in teacher education (other than those institutions offering a teacher education programme leading to a university degree) as defined in Section 2(e) of the NCTE Act, 1993 and operating on “no grant-in-aid”/ “self financing” basis.” The regulation also defined fees is Regulation 3(e), which reads thus, “3(e) “Fees” in relation to payment seats or free seats means all the institutional fees including tuition fee and development fee.” Free seats and payment seats are mentioned in Regulation 3(f) and (j) and the same is extracted hereunder: “3(f) “Free Seats” means seats on which the fee payable by a student seeking admission to, and prosecution of a course of study at a level corresponding to the fees as specified for the Government colleges and Institutions in the concerned State in respect of similar courses of study.” “3(j) “Payment Seats” means seats other than Free Seats and for which fee payable by a student seeking admission to, and prosecution of, a course of study shall not exceed the limits specified under these Regulations.” Regulation 4 deals with Admissions, which reads as follows: “4. Admission.-(1) No student other than a student who fulfils the requirements of the NCTE Regulations laying down the norms and standards for various teacher education programmes shall be eligible for admission to a teacher education programme. (2) Eligibility of candidates and procedure for admission will be regulated as per the policy of the State Government and in terms of NCTE Regulations, laying down the norms and standards for various teacher education programmes, as amended from time-to-time. (3)(i) At least 50 per cent of the seats in every recognized institution shall be Free Seats and the remaining 5p per cent be Payment Seats. .(ii) The criteria of eligibility and other conditions shall be the same in respect of both Free Seats and Payment seats, except that a higher fee is to be paid for Payment Seats. (3)(i) At least 50 per cent of the seats in every recognized institution shall be Free Seats and the remaining 5p per cent be Payment Seats. .(ii) The criteria of eligibility and other conditions shall be the same in respect of both Free Seats and Payment seats, except that a higher fee is to be paid for Payment Seats. (iii) The management of a recognized institution shall not be entitled to impose any additional eligibility criteria or conditions for admission either to Free Seats or Payment Seats. (4) Private recognized institutions shall be permitted to admit the NRI/foreign students up to a maximum of 5 per cent of the total in take approved by the Council from time-to-time for each academic year. This percentage shall be out of payment Seats. (5)(i) There shall be no quota of seats for the management or for any family, caste or community which had established the institution. .(ii) The competent authority may, at its discretion, fill any seat which may remain unfilled in five per cent NRI quota in any academic year. (iii) The fees chargeable from the students submitted under sub-regulation (ii) above shall be the same as chargeable for the students admitted against Payment Seats and not against the NRI Seats.” The constitution of Committee for fixation of fee payable is stated in Regulation (5) thus, “5. Constitution of Committees for fixation of fees payable.- .(i) The fees in recognized institutions (other than those institutions offering a teacher education programme leading to a university degree) operating on “no grant-in-aid”/”self-financing” basis shall be determined by a State Level Committee; .(ii) The State Level Committee which may be constituted in every State by the concerned Government shall consist of: .(a) Secretary in-charge of Teacher Education of the State Government-Chairman; .(b) Secretary of the Finance Department of the State Government or his Nominee-Member; .(c) Representative of the Department dealing with physical education, if such a Department exists, to be nominated by the State Government-Member; .(d) Three experts, one each in Institutional Finance, Cost Accountancy and Economics to be nominated by the State Government-Member. (e) Director in Charge of Teacher Education of the State Government-Member Secretary.” The procedures and criteria for determining fee is stated in Regulations 6 and 7. Regulation 7 reads as follows: “7. (e) Director in Charge of Teacher Education of the State Government-Member Secretary.” The procedures and criteria for determining fee is stated in Regulations 6 and 7. Regulation 7 reads as follows: “7. Criteria and procedure for determining fees.- (i) The fees to be charged shall have two broad categories, namely, tuition fee and development fee. .(ii) While deciding the fee structure for Free Seats, Payment Seats and NRI Foreign students, the Committee shall take into consideration the parameters which affect the cost, the total expenditure of the institution for running the professional course as computed on the basis of audited statements of the previous two years and reasonable projected estimation for the next three years. (iii) ………………. .(iv) …………………. .(v) ……………… .(vi) Having due regard to the parameters mentioned in sub-regulation (iv) above, suitable rates may be fixed for holders of Free Seats, Payment Seats and NRI Foreign students. (vii) …………….. (viii) The Committee shall at an interval of three years determine the development fee and different rates of development fee may be specified for students of Free Seats, Payment Seats and Foreign NRI Seats. .(ix) …………. .(x) …………….. .(xi) ……………….. (xii) No management of a teacher education institution shall in the first ten years of its establishment, appropriate more than fifty percent of the proceeds of the development fee levied or the actual capital cost, which ever is lower, for the recovery of the capital cost. The remaining amount shall be utilized for upgradation and replacements in the said first ten years and, thereafter, the entire proceeds may be utilized for upgradation and replacement purposes. As the scheme laid down by the Supreme Court of India in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) prohibits commercialization of education and profit making, it shall not be open to the institutions concerned to claim any return on investments. This may, however, not come in the way of the institutions in mobilizing resources for the replacement and upgradation of assets. Further, while earning returns on the investment would not be permissible as per the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of India in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (state), the Court had, left the question of recovering investment on the Central Government and the statutory bodies. Further, while earning returns on the investment would not be permissible as per the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of India in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (state), the Court had, left the question of recovering investment on the Central Government and the statutory bodies. It is, therefore, considered desirable that the development fee could provide for an element of partial capital cost recovery to the Management (but not a return on investment) and to serve as resource for upkeep and replacement.” In the regulation itself it is clearly stated that to prohibit commercialization of education and profit making the Committee was constituted as per the scheme laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra). 13. From the above statements contained in the regulation itself, it is evident that the said regulation was framed in the year 2002 based on the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) 14. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Paid Foundation v. State of Karnataka supra), in paragraph 50 held that the right to establish and administer broadly comprises of the following rights: “(a) to admit students; .(b) to set up a reasonable fee structure: .(c) to constitute a governing body; .(d) to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching); and .(e) to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employees.” (emphasis supplied) Item (b) relates to setting up a reasonable fee structure. In paragraphs 61 and 62, the said issue is considered wherein it is held thus, “61. In the case of unaided private schools, maximum autonomy has to be with the management with regard to administration, Including the right of appointment, disciplinary powers, admission of students and the fees to be charged. At the school level, it is not possible to grant admissions on the basis of merit. It is no secret that the examination results at all levels of unaided private schools, notwithstanding the stringent regulations of the governmental authorities, are far superior to the results of the government-maintained schools. There is no compulsion on students to attend private schools. The rush for admission is occasioned by the standards maintained in such schools, and recognition of the fact that State-run schools do not provide the same standards of education. There is no compulsion on students to attend private schools. The rush for admission is occasioned by the standards maintained in such schools, and recognition of the fact that State-run schools do not provide the same standards of education. The State says that it has no funds to establish institutions at the same level of excellence as private schools. Bu by curtailing the income of such private schools, it disables those schools from affording the best facilities because of a lack of funds. If this lowering of standards from excellence to a level of mediocrity is to be avoided, the State has to provide the difference which, therefore, brings us back in a vicious circle to the original problem viz. the lack of State funds. The solution would appear to lie in the States not using their scanty resources to prop up institutions that are able to otherwise maintain themselves out of the fees charged, but in improving the facilities and infrastructure of State-run schools and in subsidizing the fees payable by the students there. It is in the interest of the general public that more good quality schools are established; ‘autonomy and non-regulation of the school administration in the right of appointment, admission of the students and the fee to be charged will ensure. That more such institutions are established. The fear that if private school is allowed to charge fees commensurate with the fees affordable, the degrees would be “purchasable” is an unfounded one since the standards of education can be and are controllable through the regulations relating to recognition, affiliation and common final examinations. 62. There is need for private enterprise in non-professional college education as well At present, insufficient number of under graduate colleges are being and have been established, one of the inhibiting factors being that there is a lack of autonomy due to government regulations. It will not be wrong to presume that the number of professional college is growing at a faster rate than the number of undergraduate and non professional colleges. While it is desirable that there should be a sufficient number of professional colleges, it should also be possible for Private unaided undergraduate colleges that are non-technical in nature to have maximum autonomy similar to school.” (emphasis supplied) Private Unaided Professional Colleges are separately dealt with from paragraph 67 onwards. While it is desirable that there should be a sufficient number of professional colleges, it should also be possible for Private unaided undergraduate colleges that are non-technical in nature to have maximum autonomy similar to school.” (emphasis supplied) Private Unaided Professional Colleges are separately dealt with from paragraph 67 onwards. Thus, it is evident that in T.M.A. pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) case, the issue regarding fixing of fee structure was considered not only for unaided professional colleges, but also to unaided private schools/non-professional institutions. The scheme for admissions framed by the Supreme Court in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) case was held unconstitutional in paragraph 45. 15. In Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (supra), in paragraphs 6 the following questions were framed: .(1) whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure: .(2) Whether minority and non minority educational institutions stand on the same footing and have the same rights; .(3) whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to fill in their seats, to the extent of 100%, and if not, to what extent; and .(4) whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to admit students by evolving their own method of admission. (emphasis supplied) The first issue with regard to fixing of fee structure was considered in question No.1 and answered in paragraphs 7, which reads thus, “7 So far as the first question is concerned, in our view the majority judgment is very clear. There can be no fixing of a rigid fee structure by the Government. Each institute must have the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. They must also be able to generate surplus which must be used for the betterment and growth of that educational institution. In paragraph 56 of the judgment it has been categorically laid down that the decision on the fees to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational institutions that do not seek and which are not dependent upon any funds from the Government. Each institute will be entitled to have its own fee structure. In paragraph 56 of the judgment it has been categorically laid down that the decision on the fees to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational institutions that do not seek and which are not dependent upon any funds from the Government. Each institute will be entitled to have its own fee structure. The fee structure for each institute must be fixed keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities available, the investments made, salaries paid to the teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and or betterment of the institution etc. Of course there can be no profiteering and capitation fees cannot be charged. It thus need to be emphasized that as per the majority judgment imparting of education is essentially charitable in nature. Thus the surplus/profit that can be generated must be only for the benefit/use of that educational Institution. Profits/surplus cannot be diverted for any other use or purpose and cannot be used for personal gain or for any other business or enterprise. As at present there are statutes/regulations which govern the fixation of fees and as this Court has not yet considered the validity of those statutes/regulations, we direct that In order to give effect to the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) 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. 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 which can be charged by the institute. The fee fixed by the Committee shall be binding for a period of three years, at the end of which period the institute would be at liberty to apply for revision. Once 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 other head or guise e.g. donations, the same would amount to charging of capitation fee. The Governments/appropriate authorities should consider framing appropriate regulations, if not already framed, whereunder if it is found that an institution is charging capitation fees or profiteering that institution can be appropriately, penalized and also face the prospect of losing its recognition/affiliation.” (emphasis supplied) From the above directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is clear that the respective State Government/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. 16. The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the said Committee is to be constituted as per the said judgment of the Supreme Court only insofar as the professional Colleges alone is concerned, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the question framed and decided is for all educational Institutions in general. The direction issued as stated supra is further made clear in paragraph 20, which reads thus, “20. Our direction for setting up two sets of Committees in the States has been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which shall remain in force till appropriate legislation is enacted by Parliament. The expenses Incurred on the setting up of such Committees shall be borne by each State. Our direction for setting up two sets of Committees in the States has been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which shall remain in force till appropriate legislation is enacted by Parliament. The expenses Incurred on the setting up of such Committees shall be borne by each State. The infrastructural needs and provision for allowance and remuneration of the Chairman and other members of the Committee shall also be borne by the respective State Government.” 17. In the decision in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court again considered the question and question No.3 was “whether Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (supra), could have issued guidelines (in the matter of regulating the fee payable by the Students to the educational institutions,” In paragraphs 141 to 144, it is held as follows: “141 Our answer to Question 3 is that every institution is free to devise its own fee structure but the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering. No capitation fee can be charged. Q.4. Committees formed pursuant to Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (supra) 142. Most vehement attack was laid by all the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner applicants on that part of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (supra) which has directed the constitution of two Committees dealing with admissions and fee structure. Attention of the Court was invited to paras 35, 37, 38, 45 and 161 (answer to Question 9) of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) wherein similar scheme framed in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. Sate of A.P (supra) was specifically struck down. Chief Justice Kirpal has clearly ruled that the decision in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) insofar as it framed the scheme relating to the grant of admission and the fixing of the fee, was not correct and to that extent the said decision and the consequent directions give to UGC, AICTE, MCI, the Central and the State Governments, etc. are overruled. Vide para 161, T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) upheld J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) to the extent to which it holds the right to primary education as a fundamental right, but the scheme was overruled. However, the principle that there should not be capitation fee or profiteering was upheld. are overruled. Vide para 161, T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) upheld J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) to the extent to which it holds the right to primary education as a fundamental right, but the scheme was overruled. However, the principle that there should not be capitation fee or profiteering was upheld. Leverage was allowed to educational Institutions to generate reasonable surplus to meet cost of expansion and agumentation of facilities which would not amount to profiteering. It was submitted that Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (supra) has once again restored such Committees which were done away with by T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) 143. The learned senior counsel appearing for different private professional institutions, who have questioned the scheme of permanent Committees set up in the Judgment of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (supra) very fairly do not dispute that even unaided minority institutions can be subjected to regulatory measures with a view to curb commercialization of education, profiteering in it and exploitation of students. Policing is permissible but not nationalization or total takeover, submitted Shri Harish Salve, the learned senior counsel. Regulatory measures to ensure fairness and transparency in admission procedures to be based on merit have not been opposed as objectionable though a mechanism other than formation of Committees in terms of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka. (supra) was insisted on and pressed for. Similarly, it was urged that regulatory measures, to the extent permissible, may form part of conditions of recognition and affiliation by the university concerned and/or MCI and AICTE for maintaining standards of excellence in professional education. Such measures have also not been questioned as violative of the educational rights of either minorities or non-minorities. 144. The two Committees for monitoring admission procedure and determining fee structure in the judgment of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (supra) are in our view, permissible as regulatory measures aimed at protecting the interest of the student community as a whole as also the minorities themselves, in maintaining required standards of professional education on non-exploitative terms in their institutions. Legal provisions made by the State Legislatures or the scheme evolved by the Court for monitoring admission procedure and fee fixation do not violate the right of minorities under Article 30(1) or the right of minorities and non-minorities under Article 19(1)(g). They are reasonable restrictions in the interest of minority institutions permissible under Article 30(1) and in the interest of general public under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied) In paragraph 155 it is further held thus, “155. It is for the Central Government, or for the State Governments, in the absence of a Central legislation, to come out with a detailed well-thought-out legislation on the subject. Such a legislation is long awaited. The States must act towards this direction. The judicial wing of the State is called upon to act when the other two wings, the legislature and the executive, do not act. The earlier the Union of India and the State Governments act, the better it would be. The Committees regulating admission procedure and fee structure shall continue to exist, but only as a temporary measure and an inevitable passing phase until the Central Government or the State Governments are able to devise a suitable mechanism and appoint a competent authority in consonance with the observations made hereinabove. Needless to say, any decision taken by such Committees and by the Central or the State Governments, shall be open to judicial review in accordance with the settled parameters for the exercise of such jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied) From the reading of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is clear that it is for the Central Government or for the State Government in the absence of Central legislation to come out with a detailed well-thought legislation on this subject. 18. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 was found valid by the Supreme Court with regard to the collection of fees to be prescribed by the Director of Education Modern School v. Union of India (supra) has no substance. Admittedly there was an Act viz., Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which regulated the fee structure in unaided educational institutions. The said Act was enacted by not following the scheme framed in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) case. Admittedly there was an Act viz., Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which regulated the fee structure in unaided educational institutions. The said Act was enacted by not following the scheme framed in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) case. In para 17 the reason for upholding the said Act is stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which reads as follows: “17. In the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (supra) of Education the provisions of the 1973 Act and the Rules framed thereunder may be seen. The object of the said Act is to provide better organization and development of school education in Delhi and for matters connected thereto. Section 18(3) of the Act states that in every recognized unaided school, there shall be a fund, to be called as Recognised Unaided School Fund consisting of income accruing to the school by way of fees, charges and contributions. Section 18(4)(a) states that income derived by unaided schools by way of fees shall be utilized only for the educational purposes as may be prescribed by the Rules. Rule 172 (1) states that no fees shall be collected from any student by the trust/society running any recognized school; whether aided or unaided. That under Rule 172(2), every fee collected from any student by a recognized school, whether aided or not, shall be collected in the name of the school. Rule 173(4) inter alia states that every Recognised Unaided School Fund shall be deposited in a natinalised bank. Under Rule 175, the accounts of Recognised Unaided School Fund shall clearly indicate the income accruing to the school by way of fees, fine, income from rent, income by way of Interest, income by way of development fees, etc. Rule 177 refers to utilization of fees realized by unaided recognized school. Therefore, Rule 175 indicates accrual of income whereas rule 177 indicates utilization of that income. Therefore, reading Section 18(4) with Rules 172, 173, 174, 175 and 177 on one hand and Section 17(3) on the other hand, it is clear that under the Act, the Director is authorized to regulate the fees and other charges to prevent commercialization of education. Under Section 17(3), the school has to furnish a full statement of fees in advance before the commencement of the academic session. Under Section 17(3), the school has to furnish a full statement of fees in advance before the commencement of the academic session. Reading Section 17(3) with Sections 18(3) and (4) of the Act and the Rules quoted above, it is clear that the Director has the authority to regulate the fees under Section 17(3) of the Act.” 19. It is the specific case of the respondents that except the regulation framed by the NCTE in the year 2002, which was framed as per the scheme framed in terms of J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) case, no other legislation for fixing of fee structure for the Unaided Teacher Training Institutions, either by the NCTE or by the State Government, is enacted till date. 20. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the regulation of the NCTE framed in the year 2002 is under the NCTE Act, 1993, which is a central legislation and therefore the regulation framed is valid. The learned Additional Advocate General however admitted that the said regulation was framed in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) case. The same is also reflected in the regulation extracted above. No further regulation after overruling the judgment of J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) case was framed by the NCTE/Central Government/State Government, till date to fix the fee structure of the Unaided Teacher Training institutions. The source of power is traced by the Government from the said NCTE Regulation only. In the regulation, constitution of the Committee and the procedures to be followed while fixing fee, which was ordered to be followed in all aspect is mentioned following the scheme framed in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) case. The NCTE also not issued any clarification by stating that the regulation can be followed after the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) case. 21. The Committee is not constituted deriving powers under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, or under the Rules, 1974. Therefore, whether the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, will apply to the Teacher Training Institutions or not, is not necessarily to be decided in these writ petitions. 21. The Committee is not constituted deriving powers under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, or under the Rules, 1974. Therefore, whether the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, will apply to the Teacher Training Institutions or not, is not necessarily to be decided in these writ petitions. Further, recognitions to the Teacher Training Institutions are admittedly not granted under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, after NCTE Act, 1993, which came into force, from August, 1995. Hence I am of the firm view that the NCTE Regulations, 2002, which was issued relying the scheme framed by the Supreme Court in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (supra) case, become inoperative as the said decision was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) and consequently the impugned Government Order passed relying solely on the above NCTE regulation, 2002, in unsustainable. 22. In the light of the above findings, the impugned Government Order constituting Fee Committee cannot be sustained as it is in contravention of the judgments of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra), Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (supra) and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (supra). 23. It is to be further noted that till date, no fee structure is fixed for unaided Teacher Training Institutes regarding collection of fees from the students, either admitted under the Single Window Selection or the Management quota. Hitherto, the respondents by their inaction allowed the managements to collect fees without any restriction/limitation and in the counter affidavit it is stated that huge amount of fee is collected from the students. For such state of affair, the respondents are only responsible as they demanded their own fee of Rs.3500/-and not fixed any fee to be collected by the management. The said fact was noticed by me while hearing the interim application filed by the Teacher Training Institutions. In my interim order dated 17. 2008. I have noted the fee structure fixed by the Fee Committee constituted in the Union Territory of Puducherry, headed by a retired Judge of this Court fixing Rs.23,000/- for each students per year from the academic year 2004-2005. In my interim order dated 17. 2008. I have noted the fee structure fixed by the Fee Committee constituted in the Union Territory of Puducherry, headed by a retired Judge of this Court fixing Rs.23,000/- for each students per year from the academic year 2004-2005. As an interim measure, I have also fixed a sum of Rs.23,000/- per student (first year students) for the academic year 2008-2009 and the Unaided Teacher Training Institutions are allowed to collect only Rs.23,000/-from all students admitted in their Institutions. The respondents have also issued directions through press release dated 37. 2008 in compliance with the said interim order to receive only Rs.23,000/-from the students admitted in the Unaided Private Teacher Training Institutions and also stated that if any Higher amount is charged, action will be initiated against such institutions. In view of the said admitted position, the first respondent is bound to constitute a Committee as per the judgments of the Supreme Court to fix fee structure of the Private Unaided Teacher Training Institutions immediately, headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, so as to fix the fee structure for the academic year 2009-2010. The first respondent is directed to constitute the fee Committee in compliance with the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court directions within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to enable the Fee Committee to fix proper fee to Private Self-Financing Teacher Training Institutes in Tamil Nadu before the commencement of the academic year 2009-2010. The writ petitions are allowed with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.