I.A. Ansari, J.;- The petitioner No. 1 herein is a society formed by the guardians of the students of the Delhi Public School (in short, 'DPS'), Numaligarh, represented by petitioner No. 2, who is its President, the petitioner No. 3 be­ing a guardian, whose son studies in the DPS, Numaligarh. which is situated inside the area of the Numaligarh Refineries Limited (here­inafter referred to as 'NRL') at a distance of about 25 kilometers from Golaghat town. 2. Te case of the petitioners is, in brief thus: (i) The DPS, NRL, was established, in the year 1997, with the object of impart­ing quality education to the wards of the employees of the NRL, the school being affiliated to the Central Board of Second­ary Education (in short, 'CBSE'). and it is an unaided private school in the State of Assam. Though established, initially, to impart education, as indicated herein-be-fore, to the wards of the employees work­ing in NRL the school was thrown upon to the general public so that they could get their children enrolled in the school, which, now, has about 750 students. Out of these students, about 250 students are children of the employees of the NRL and of other similar organizations and around 500 stu­dents are outsiders, whose parents do not work in NRL. Most of the students, who are not children of the employees of NRL, are from Golaghat and Bokakhat town­ships in the district of Golaghat. In the year 1997, the fee structure of the DPS, NRL, was as under: Admission fee (one time) - Rs. 2,500.00 Caution Money deposit (refundable) - Rs. 3,000.00 Development fund - Rs.2,500.00p.a. Activity charges - Rs. 1,000.00 p.a. Computer fee - Rs. 400.00 p.a. Library Fee - Rs. 150.00 p.a. Examination fee - Rs. 600.00 p.a. Tuition Fee - Rs. 350.00pm (ii) In the year 1999, the Development fund was hiked from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,500/- per annum, the Activity charges were hiked from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/-per annum and Examination fee was hiked from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 800/- per month. (iii) hi the year 2000, vide letter, dated 01.03.2004, the tuition fees of the school for day scholars was hiked by 20% and the development fund was hiked to Rs. 6,000/-from Rs. 3,500/-. The fee struc­ture of the DPS, NRL, for the year 2000,was restructured and fixed as un­der: Rs.6,000.00p.a. -Rs. 1,500.00 p.a. -Rs. 600.00p.a. -Rs. 800/- per month. (iii) hi the year 2000, vide letter, dated 01.03.2004, the tuition fees of the school for day scholars was hiked by 20% and the development fund was hiked to Rs. 6,000/-from Rs. 3,500/-. The fee struc­ture of the DPS, NRL, for the year 2000,was restructured and fixed as un­der: Rs.6,000.00p.a. -Rs. 1,500.00 p.a. -Rs. 600.00p.a. -Rs. 400.00p.a. -Rs. 800.00p.a. -Rs. 150.00 p.a. Development fund Activity charges Computer fee Library Fee Stationary fee School Magazine fee Scholastic & GK Testing fee -Rs. 250.00 p.a Science Laboratory Fee (For Class XI & XII) - Rs. 1,800.00 p.a Tuition Fee (For Class Nursery - Rs. 7,080. OOp.a. To Class X@Rs.590/-) Tuition Fee (For Class XI &XII@Rs.590/-) -Rs. 7,800.00 p.a. (iv) By a Circular, dated 24.03.2006. the DPS, NRL. informed the parents/ guardians of the students of the school that, with effect from the academic year 2006-2007, the tuition fees for all students would undergo an upward revision by Rs. 150/-per month, and the development fee would be revised by Rs. 4,000/- per annum, the hike in the fee structure being about 66% in Development fees and 25% in the tui­tion fees. This hike in the fee structure, in DPS, NRL. was resisted by the petitioner association. The association got, in touch with the Principal of the DPS, NRL and conveyed the concern of the guardians of the students, but the Principal informed them that it was not within his capacity or power to reduce the hike in the fees and asked the representatives of the associa­tion to take up the matter with the Pro Vice Chairman of the DPS, NRL. The petition­ers accordingly submitted a letter, dated 12.04.2006, to the Pro Vice Chairman, containing therein the grievances of the association against the huge hike in the fee structure. A meeting in this regard, was held, on 13.04.2006, between the peti­tioners and the Pro Vice Chairman of the DPS, NRL and, in the meeting, even the Pro Vice Chairman expressed his inability to reduce the fee structure and contended that the hike in the fees was due to rise in the salary of the teachers, wages and re­lated expenditures, etc. (v) Though the representatives of the association sought for justification for the hike in the fees, no justification could be offered by the Pro Vice Chairman. (v) Though the representatives of the association sought for justification for the hike in the fees, no justification could be offered by the Pro Vice Chairman. The DPS Parents' Association, again, made a representation to the Pro Vice Chairman, on 19.04.2006, informing him that they would defer payment of fees until all the relevant facts relating to, and in justifica­tion of, the hike in fees, are made known to them. There was however, no response to the letters given by the petitioners de­spite the directions given by the High Court, in Maharishi Vidhya Mandir Guardians' Action Committee & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2001 (1) GLT 408, to the unaided schools, in Assam. The petitioners submitted a representation in this regard, to the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, on 16.05.2006, requesting him to take appropriate action, in this regard. By their letter, dated 30.05.2006. the Guardians association, again, made a rep­resentation to the Principal, DPS, NRL, requesting him to allow them to pay, till the dispute was resolved, the school fees as per the old rates before the hike in the fee structure had taken place. vi) The further grievance of the peti­tioners is that there is serious discrimina­tion meted out to the students, whose par­ents are not employees of NRL inasmuch as the DPS, NRL maintains two distinct fee structures, one for the children of the employees of the NRL, and the other for those children, whose parents are not employees of the NRL. Apart from the discriminatory rates of fees, which are im­posed on the children of those, who are not employees of the NRL the children of the employees of the NRL do not pay development fees at all. This apart, while the cars, carrying the students of the em­ployees of NRL, are allowed to go up to the school main gate, the vehicles, carry­ing the children of those, who are not em­ployees of NRL, and the school bus from Golaghat town is not allowed to go up to the school main gate and hence, the bus has to he parked at a distance of about 100-150 meters away and, as a result thereof, the students of the junior school, who are of the age group of 4 to 10 years, are to carry heavy school bags through­out the year including the rainy season. Aggrieved by such discriminatory treat­ment, meted out to them and because of variety of other reasons, which have been mentioned above, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate direction(s) to the respond­ents including a direction to the respond­ents not to give effect/to the Circular, dated 24.03.2006, aforementioned. 3. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, and Mr. A. D. Choudhury, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. I have also heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior coun­sel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2,3.4 and 5, and Mr. H. K. Barman, learned Government counsel appearing for respond­ent No.6. 4. While considering the present writ pe­tition, it needs to be noted that the DPS, NRL, does not associate the parents of the students in the management of the school affairs. The management of the school, including fixing of the fee structure, is in the hands of the NRL authorities and this is what has been mainly objected to by the writ petitioners. It is also noteworthy, in this regard, that the State Gov­ernment has enacted the Assam Non-Gov­ernment Educational Institutions (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006 (hereinafter re­ferred to as the 2006 Act'), which has been gazetted and brought into force with effect from 12.01.2007. A non-Government edu­cational institution means, according to Section 2(g) of the 2006 Act, a school or junior college established and run by an individual or association of individuals or any non-Gov­ernment organization or society or trust ex­cept the schools established and maintained by minorities under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and impart educa­tion at Primary, Middle, Secondary and Higher Secondary Level without receiving any grants-in-aid from the State Government ex­cluding, of course, the educational institutions run or aided by the Central Government or the State Government. 5. There is, however, no dispute that the DPS, NRL, falls within the expression. 'non-Government educational institution', within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the 2006 Act. One may also pause here and take note of the definition of the existing non-Government educational institutions, which, according to Section 2(c) of the 2006 Act, means the non-Government educational institutions, which were in existence on the date of commence­ment of the 2006 Act. 'non-Government educational institution', within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the 2006 Act. One may also pause here and take note of the definition of the existing non-Government educational institutions, which, according to Section 2(c) of the 2006 Act, means the non-Government educational institutions, which were in existence on the date of commence­ment of the 2006 Act. What, now, needs to be carefully noted is that, at the time of hear­ing of this writ petition, the State respondents have produced a copy of the Gazette Notifi­cation, dated 01.08.2011, whereby the 2006 Act has been brought into force with effect from 12.01.2007. 6. In fact, it is not in dispute before this Court that the DPS, NRL, falls within the existing non-Government education institution and it is, therefore, required to be managed and run in terms of the provisions of the 2006 Act. What may, however, be noted is that while Section 4 of the 2006 Act mandates prior permission for establishment and regis­tration of the non-Government educational institutions. Section 6 relates to registration and administrative recognition of the existing non-Government educational institutions in terms of the statutory provisions of the 2006 Act. 7. It could not be submitted, on behalf of the DPS, NRI. at the time of hearing of this case, if the school is registered and have ad­ministrative recognition as provided in Sec­tion 6 of the 2006 Act. This apart, Section 12 of the 2006 Act provides for constitution of Managing Committee of non-Government educational institutions. Clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the 2006 Act provides that two representatives to be elected or selected by the guardians from amongst themselves in a meeting to be convened by the school authority in this behalf. 8. With the coming into force of the 2006 Act, with effect from 12.01.2007, there ought to have been included in the Managing Com­mittee of the school, in question, two repre­sentatives of the guardians of the students of the DPS, NRL, in terms of Section 12 thereof This has, admittedly, not been done. It is, however, submitted, on behalf of the DPS, NRL, that the DPS, NRL, will soon consti­tute a Managing Committee in terms of the requirements of the 2006 Act. The constitu­tion of the Managing Committee requires, in terms of Section 14 of the 2006 Act, ap­proval and acceptance thereof by the Direc­tor, Secondary Education, Government of Assam. 9. It is, however, submitted, on behalf of the DPS, NRL, that the DPS, NRL, will soon consti­tute a Managing Committee in terms of the requirements of the 2006 Act. The constitu­tion of the Managing Committee requires, in terms of Section 14 of the 2006 Act, ap­proval and acceptance thereof by the Direc­tor, Secondary Education, Government of Assam. 9. With the enforcement of the 2006 Act, therefore, the Managing Committee of the DPS, NRL, has to be constituted in terms of the provisions of Section 12 and this would require inclusion of two representatives of the guardians, who are to be selected or elected in the manner as indicated above. This apart, the constitution of the Managing Committee would be valid and able to function legally only on approval having been accorded, in this regard, by the Director, Secondary Edu­cation, Assam. 10. It has been pointed out by the peti­tioners, and could not be disputed by the re­spondents, that there are two distinct fee structures for the students, one meant for the wards of the employees of the NRL Ltd., and the other for the wards of those, who are not employees of the NRL. Coming to the alle­gation of discriminatory treatment, so meted out to the students of the DPS, whose par­ents/ guardians are not employees of the NRL, it needs to be mentioned that during the course of hearing of this writ petition, Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior counsel, ap­pearing for the DPS, NRL, produced a copy of the instructions, dated 11.05.2011, re­ceived by him from the Pro- Vice Chairman, DPS, NRL, which indicates that the Local Managing Committee of the DPS, NRL, has agreed to either not to take Development Fee from anybody, or to take the same from all students irrespective of the fact whether the student is a child of an employee of NRL or of an outsider. 11. Considering the fact that the respond­ent school agrees not to charge development fees from anybody unless it, decides to charge development fees from everyone, this Court restrains itself, at this stage, from making any adverse comments on the conduct of NRL authorities so far as the dual fee structure is concerned. What must, one, however, has to bear in mind is that the development fees can­not, in the light of the decision, in Modern School Vs. What must, one, however, has to bear in mind is that the development fees can­not, in the light of the decision, in Modern School Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2004) 5 SCC 583 , be arbitrarily fixed and in no event, it can exceed 15% of the total annual tuition fee. 12. The relevant observations, made in Modern School (supra), read as under: "25. In our view, on account of increased cost due to inflation, the management is enti­tled to create a Development Fund Account. For creating such development fund, the man­agement is required to collect development fees. In the present case, pursuant to the recommen­dation, of the Duggal Committee, development fees could be levied at a rate not exceeding 10% to 15% of total annual tuition fee. Direction No. 7 further states that development fees not ex­ceeding 10% to 15% of total annual tuition fee shall be charged for supplementing the re­sources for purchase, upgradation and replace­ment of furniture, fixtures and equipments. It further states that development fees shall be treated as capital receipt and shall be collected only if the school maintains a depreciation re­serve fund. In our view, Direction No. 7 is ap­propriate. If one goes though the Report of the Duggal Committee, one finds absence of non-creation of specified earmarked fund. On going through the Report of the Duggal Committee, one finds further that depreciation has been charged without creating a corresponding fund. Therefore, Direction No. 7 seeks to introduce a proper accounting practice to be followed by non-business organisations/ not-for-profit organizations. With this correct practice being introduced, development fees for supplement­ing the resources for purchase, upgradation and replacements of furniture and fixtures and equipments is justified. Taking into account the cost of inflation between 15.12.1999 and 31.12.2003 we are of the view that the manage­ment of recognised unaided schools should he permitted to charge development fee not ex­ceeding 15% of the total annual tuition fee." [Emphasis added] 13. Contrary to what the Supreme Court has held, in Modern School (supra), that Edu­cational Institution should not charge devel­opment fee exceeding 15% of the total annual tuition fee, the development fee charged un­der the impugned circular, in the present case, is, admittedly, far exceeding 15% of the Tui­tion Fee, which is wholly illegal. 14. Contrary to what the Supreme Court has held, in Modern School (supra), that Edu­cational Institution should not charge devel­opment fee exceeding 15% of the total annual tuition fee, the development fee charged un­der the impugned circular, in the present case, is, admittedly, far exceeding 15% of the Tui­tion Fee, which is wholly illegal. 14. Coupled with the above Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the act provides that the Managing Committee, constituted under the 2006 Act, shall frame a scheme of manage­ment for the institution containing the salary structures and other conditions of service of the employees and the fee structures in all lev­els of education amongst other things and shall submit the same to the Director for consid­eration, acceptance and record. 15. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 pro­vides that no levy of any kind of fee shall be made or imposed by the institution in excess of their fees, as fixed in the scheme of Man­agement, except with the prior approval of the Directors. Sub section (3) of Section 14 further provides that the Director may ap­prove or disapprove the proposed increase of the fee. However, the Director may ap­prove the increase in fees if he is of the opin­ion that such an increase is necessary due to increase in the facilities provided in the insti­tution and may disapprove for reasons to be recorded in writing. 16. It may be further pointed out that un­der Section 24 of the 2006 Act, any school, if found running in the State without being reg­istered, is liable to be closed down. 17. 16. It may be further pointed out that un­der Section 24 of the 2006 Act, any school, if found running in the State without being reg­istered, is liable to be closed down. 17. In view of the fact that in exercise of the power conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 31 of the 2006 Act, the State of As­sam has enacted the Assam Non-Government Educational Institution (Regulation and Man­agement) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules'), with effect from 29.10.2007 and, under the provision of Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules, each and every non-Governmental institution shall prepare and submit to the Director a scheme of Manage­ment for approval of the same under Section 14 of the Act, dealing, amongst others, pro­visions for students fee structure indicating rate of admission fee, tuition fee, game fee, library fee, festival fee, development fee, other fees per student class-wise, it logically follows that, even the Management of the school owes the statutory obligation to constitute, as indicated above, a Management Committee in terms of the provisions of Section 12 of the 2006 Act and submit the scheme of management, which the school may so prepare, to the Di­rector, Secondary Education, for his ap­proval, as required by Section 15 of the 2006 Act. 18. While considering the present writ petition, it also needs to be noted that that, in TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2002) 8 SCC 181 , the Supreme Court has clearly pointed out per majority that though the fees to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational institutions, the objective of such educational institutions must not be to earn profit inasmuch as education is essen­tially charitable in nature. The relevant obser­vations, made in TMA Pai Foundation (su­pra), read as under: "53. With regard to the core components of the rights under Articles 19 and 26(a), it must be held that while the State has the right to pre­scribe qualifications necessary for admission, private unaided colleges have the right to ad­mit students of their choice, subject to an ob­jective and rational procedure of selection and the compliance with conditions, if any, requir­ing admission of a small percentage of students belonging to weaker sections of the society by granting them free-ships or scholarships, if not granted by the Government. Furthermore, in setting up a reasonable fee structure, the ele­ment of profiteering is not as yet accepted in Indian conditions. The fee structure must take into consideration the need to generate funds to be utilized for the betterment and growth of the educational institution, the betterment of education in that institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the stu­dents. In any event, a private institution will have the right, to constitute its own governing body, for which qualifications may be prescribed by the State or the university concerned. It will, however, be objectionable if the State retains the power to nominate specific individuals on governing bodies. Nomination, by the State, which could be on a political basis, will be an inhibiting factor for private enterprise to em­bark upon the occupation of establishing and administering educational institution. For the same reasons, nomination, of teachers either directly by the department or through as serv­ice commission will be an unreasonable inroad and an unreasonahle restriction on the au­tonomy of the private unaided educational in­stitution. 56. An educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution. Differ­ent courses of study are usually taught by teachers who have to be recruited as per quali­fications that may be prescribed. It is no secret that better working conditions will attract bet­ter teachers. More amenities will ensure that better students seek admission to that institu­tion. One cannot lose sight of the fact that pro­viding good amenities to the students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other infrastructure costs money. It has, therefore, to be left to the institution, if it chooses not to seek any aid from the Government, to deter­mine the scale of fee that it can charge from the students. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that we live in a competitive world today, where professional education is in demand. We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private parties who do not seek any Governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective stu­dent has various options open to him/her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private parties who do not seek any Governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective stu­dent has various options open to him/her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. The decision on the fee to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educa­tional institution that does not seek or is not dependent upon any funds from the Govern­ment. 57. We, however, wish to emphasize one point, and that is that inasmuch as the occupa­tion of education is, in a sense, regarded as charitable, the Government can provide regula­tions that will ensure excellence in education, while forbidding the charging of capitation fee and profiteering by the institution. Since the object of setting up an educational institution is by definition "charitable' it is clear that an educational institution cannot charge such a fee as is not required for the purpose of fulfill­ing that object. To put it differently, in the es­tablishment of an educational institution, the object should not be to make a profit, inasmuch as education is essentially charitable in nature. There can, however, be a reasonable revenue surplus, which may be generated by the educa­tional institution for the purpose of develop­ment of education and expansion of the institu­tion." [Emphasis added] 19. What surfaces from the above discus­sion is that the management of the DPS, NRL, ought to get the school registered in terms of the provisions of the 2006 Act. Its Managing Committee has to be constituted in accord­ance with the provisions of the 2006 Act by including, therein, amongst others, two rep­resentatives of the guardians of the students of the said schools. The DPS, NRL, is also under obligation not to run the school for the purpose of earning profit and they cannot, in the light of what have been discussed above, impose development fees exceeding 15% of the total annual tuition fee. 20. Having realized what the school, in question, ought to do, Mr. The DPS, NRL, is also under obligation not to run the school for the purpose of earning profit and they cannot, in the light of what have been discussed above, impose development fees exceeding 15% of the total annual tuition fee. 20. Having realized what the school, in question, ought to do, Mr. A. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel, has submit­ted that the authorities of the DPS, NRL, would take all necessary steps not only for registration of the school, but also for consti­tution of the Managing Committee of the school in accordance with the provisions of the 2006 Act and that the realization of the fees would also be in tune with the law laid down in that behalf. 21. In the result and for the reasons dis­cussed above, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned Circular, dated 24.03.2006, whereby new fee structure was introduced and was sought to be enforced by the DPS. NRL, is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents concerned are hereby directed not to run the school contrary to the provi­sions of the Act and not to resort to enhance­ment of the fees contrary to law. The respond­ents are also hereby directed to ensure that the students, whose parents/guardians are not employees of the NRL, are not treated with discrimination in any manner. 22. With the above observations and di­rections, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.