1. The petitioner No. 1 herein is a society formed by the guardians of the students of the Delhi Public School ('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 Ltd. CNRL') at a distance of about 25 kilometers from Golaghat town. 2. The case of the petitioners is, in brief, thus : (i) The DPS, NRL, was established, in the year 1 997, 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 ('CBSE'), and it is an unaided private school in the State of Assam. Though established, initially, to impart education, as indicated hereinbefore, 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. 2,500.00 p.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 00 p.m. (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) In the year 2000, vide letter, dated 1.3,2004, 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 : Development fund Rs. 6,000.00 p.a. Activity charges Rs. (iii) In the year 2000, vide letter, dated 1.3,2004, 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 : Development fund Rs. 6,000.00 p.a. Activity charges Rs. 1,500.00 p.a. Computer fee Rs. 600.00 p.a. Library fee Rs. 400.00 p.a. Stationary fee Rs. 800.00 p.a. School Magazine fee Rs. 150.00 p.a. Scholastic and G.K. Testing fee Rs. 250.00 p.a. Science Laboratory fee Rs. 1,800.00 p.a (For Class XI & XII) Tuition Fee (for Class Nursery Rs. 7,080.00 p.a. To Class X@Rs. 590). Tuition Fee (for Class XI & XII Rs. 7,800.00 p.a. @ Rs. 590) (iv) By a Circular, dated 24.3.2006, 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 12.4.2006, 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 13.4.2006, 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 19.4.2006, 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 and Another v. State of Assam and Others, 2001 (1) GLT 408;(2001) 2 GLR 378, to the unaided schools, in Assam. The petitioners submitted a representation, in this regard, to the Deputy Commissioner. Golaghat, on 16.5.2006, requesting him to take appropriate action, in this regard. By their letter, dated 30.5.2006, 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 be parked at a distance of about 100-150 metres 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 24.3.2006, 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 entire 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 ('the 2006 Act'), which has been gazetted and brought into force with effect from 12.1.2007. 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. 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 1.8.2011, whereby the 2006 Act has been brought into force with effect from 12.1.2007. 6. In fact, it is not in dispute before this court that the DPS. NRL, falls within the existing non-Government educational 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. NRL, 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 12.1.2007, 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 11.5.201, 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. 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 v. Union of India and Ors., (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 through 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 organizations, 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 be permitted to charge development fee not exceeding 15% of the total annual tuition fee." (emphasis added) 13. 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 be 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, tar 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 Stale without being registered, is liable to be closed down. 17. In view of the fact that in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) of section 31 of the 2006 Act, the State of Assam has enacted the Assam Non-Government Educational Institution (Regulation and Management.) Rules. 17. In view of the fact that in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (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 ('the 2007 Rules'), with effect from 29.10.2007 and, under the provision of rule 16 of the 2007 Rules, each and every non-Government 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 in TMA Pai Fondation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481 , 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. 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 institutions. For the same reasons, nomination of teachers either directly by the department or through a service commission will be an unreasonable inroad and an unreasonable restriction on the autonomy of the private unaided educational institution. 54 *** *** *** 55 *** *** *** 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 ensue 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 got 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 24.3.2006, 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. _____________