Judgment U.V. Bakre, J. The above petitions involve common question of facts and law and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard, the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties Respondents waive service. 4. Alleging that the respondent no.3-school has been charging exorbitant and arbitrary fees to the students and is using coercive tactics by issuing notices to the petitioners thereby threatening that the names of their wards will be struch off the rolls of the school, if the fees as demanded are not paid, the petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Petitioners, in Writ Petition No.748 of 2011, have prayed as follows : a) For a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to perform its statutory duties and to decide the application dated 07.10.2011 and 18.10.2011 made by the Petitioner to the Director of Education. b) For a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the application for approval of the fee structure made by the respondent no.3 under each of the heads as sought for, after following the mandatory provision of scrutiny of the audited accounts of the preceding year for which approval is sought under section 139(3) of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986. c) For a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus ordering the withdrawal of the letter dated 19.11.2011. 6. The reliefs prayed for, in Writ Petition No.83 of 2012, are as under : a) For a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent no.3 to adhere to the fee structure approved by the respondent no.1 in accordance with the provisions of the Goa School Education Act and Rules. b) For an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the Order dated 22/09/2011 issued by the Respondent no.1 and directing the respondent no.1 to decide upon the fee structure proposed by the respondent no.3 in accordance with law. b) For an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the Order dated 22/09/2011 issued by the Respondent no.1 and directing the respondent no.1 to decide upon the fee structure proposed by the respondent no.3 in accordance with law. c) For a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent no.3 to roll back the fee structure for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 to the approved fee structure of 2008-09 and to reimburse excessive fees collected from parents for the years 2010 d) For an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notice / order dated 5.12.11 issued by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner No.2. e) For an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the show cause notices dated 19.11.11 issued to Petitioners 1, 3, 4 and 5 under Rule 24 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986, by the respondent no.3. 7. The petitioners have their wards studying in respondent No.3-school. A Writ Petition No.366 of 2009 has been filed by the All Goa Unaided Schools Parents Association, inter alia, challenging the alleged arbitrary fees hikes by unaided private recognised schools in the State of Goa. Pursuant to the filing of the said Writ Petition, the government had set up a committee to inquire into the issue of fee structure and into the policies relating to fee structure for unaided recognised school in the State. The said committee has placed its report before this Court and the same is also pending for approval of the State Government. 8. According to the petitioners, due to their efforts, the respondent No.1 was pleased to issue orders from time to time directing the respondent No.3 to stop demanding and collecting fees in terms of fee structure that was not approved by the respondent no.1. They say that though the fee structure of the respondent no.3-school was not approved for the academic year 2010-2011, the said school has been issuing fee slips and collecting fees as per the structure which did not have the sanction of the respondent no.1, that is mandated under section 19(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act and Rules made thereunder (said Act and said Rules, for short). The petitioners brought this fact to the notice of the respondent no.1 who issued directions to the respondent No.3-school, by letter dated 11/2/2011, to roll back the fees to the last approved fee structure which was of the year 2008-2009. The respondent No.3 challenged the said directions by filing Writ Petition No.239 of 2011, in which this Court passed an order dated 03/05/2011, directing the respondent No.1 to decide the matter after issuing show cause notice to the respondent No.3 and till such time not to take any coercive action against the respondent No.3. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.3 by misrepresenting the said order dated 03/05/2011, wrote letter to the petitioners, stating therein that the High Court has "enabled" them to collect fees as per a fee structure that was pending approval by the Respondent No.2. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 29/06/2011 rejecting the reply filed by the respondent No.3 and declining to give sanction to the fee structure proposed for the academic year 2011-2012. The respondent No.3 however filed Writ Petition No.412 of 2011 in which this Court directed the respondent No.1 to rehear and decide the matter afresh on the fee structure. The respondent No.1 passed an order dated 22/09/2011 wherein the Director of Education held that certain fees charged by the respondent No.3-school are arbitrary, unjustified and exorbitant. The respondent No.3 has accepted the said order of the respondent No.1 and has issued fresh slips to the parents. However, the same arbitrary and unjustified fees were also collected from the parents for the year 2010-11, without approval of the fee structure by the respondent No.1. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that the Director did not take into account that the fee structure could not be finalized unless the audited statement of account of the school is scrutinized and further that there was no approval given to the various heads levied in the fee structure. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that the said order dated 22/9/11 did not direct that the fees collected, which were held to be arbitrary and unjustified, were to be reimbursed to the parents and finally the same also did not decide on the fee structure for the academic year 2010-2011 which had no approval from the Director of Education as was required in terms of the said Act and the said Rules. The petitioners filed application dated 07/10/2011 for review of the said order dated 22/9/2011. The petitioner (Franky Monteiro) also addressed a reminder dated 18/10/2011 to the Director of Education. However, no reply or communication has been received by the petitioners on the review application. 10. In answer to the writ petitions, the respondent No.3 filed Affidavit-in-reply in both, justifying their action. The Petitioners have filed affidavit-in-rejoinder. The Respondent No.3 has then filed affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder. 11. The respondent No.3 has alleged that it has been charging fees to the students in consonance with the fees approved by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.3-school is managed by a trust registered on 29/11/1968 and the trustees are mainly the parents of the students or the Ex-students. It is completely an unaided English Medium School and as per the said Act, it has to follow a fee structure as approved by the respondent No.1 and until otherwise approved, fees are required to be charged as per the proposed statement of fees submitted by the School. By letter dated 16/5/2008, the respondent No.1 had approved the fee structure for the academic year 2008-09, forwarded to it by the respondent No.3. Somewhere around the end of September, 2008, the Government of Goa decided to implement the 6th Pay Commission Pay Scales with effect from 01/01/2006, which was given effect to by the respondent No.3 from June, 2010. Accordingly, the proposed revised fee structure for the year 2009-10 was forwarded to the respondent No.1, by taking into account an increased/revised scales to enable the respondent No.3 to pay the revised salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission Report. 12. It is further stated by the respondent No.3-school that the respondent No.1 issued a circular dated 24/02/2009 directing the managements of the unaided schools to follow the provisions of section 13 of the said Act with regard to the salaries of the employees. Since the proposal of the revised fee structure forwarded to the respondent No.1 was not approved, the respondent No.3 continued charging fees as approved for the year 2008-09 and also pursued the matter with the respondent No.1 for grant of approval to the revised fees, as proposed by the school. On 08/03/2010, the respondent No.3 forwarded the proposal of fees for the academic year 2010-11, to the respondent No.1, for approval. On 08/03/2010, the respondent No.3 forwarded the proposal of fees for the academic year 2010-11, to the respondent No.1, for approval. The respondent no 3 received a circular dated 16/04/2010 issued by the respondent No.1 specifying the revised tuition and other fees. At the Primary Section (Std I to V), fee was to be charged at Rs. 1350/-per month and at the Secondary Section, fee was to be charged at Rs. 1800/-per month. The respondent No.1 had also permitted the school to charge fees for sports, co-curricular activities, examinations, etc. The respondent No.3-school states that the managing committee of the school approved the fee structure to be made effective from 01/06/2010 and forwarded the said proposed fee structure to the respondent No.1. The fee per month which was charged by the respondent No.3-school was: Rs. 1775/-for the Primary Section; Rs. 1875/-for the Middle Section; and Rs. 2395/-for the Secondary Section and these figures included 15% developmental fee and other fees permitted to be charged. However the respondent No.3-school received a letter dated 06/07/2010 from the respondent No.1 stating that the circular dated 16/04/2010 stood withdrawn from the date of its issue. By this time the respondent no 3 had already disbursed the salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the respondent No.3 and it was not possible to recover or to reduce the salaries. Hence the respondent No.3 discussed the issue of withdrawal of the circular dated 16/04/2010 with the parents and teachers association (PTA) and the PTA in its meeting dated 20/08/2010 resolved to support the fee hike by the respondent No.3-school. It is therefore, according to the respondent No.3, that, it continued to charge fees as stated earlier. 13. It is submitted by the respondent No.3 that except the five parents, other parents had agreed to pay and had paid the school fees in the first quarters of the academic year 2011-12 and even the said five parents had to pay the amounts which were less than Rs. 5,000/-. But the Deputy Director of Education (Plg) issued a letter dated 11/02/2011 to the respondent No.3 stating that several complaints have been received regarding the fees charged. By this letter, the respondent No.3 was directed to roll back to the fee structure approved in 2008/09. 5,000/-. But the Deputy Director of Education (Plg) issued a letter dated 11/02/2011 to the respondent No.3 stating that several complaints have been received regarding the fees charged. By this letter, the respondent No.3 was directed to roll back to the fee structure approved in 2008/09. The respondent, vide letter dated 24/02/2011, addressed to the said Deputy Director, explained all its difficulties and requested to reconsider the letter dated 11/02/2011. Thereafter, vide letter dated 25/04/2011, the respondent No.3 forwarded the fee structure for the academic year 2011-12, as approved by the managing committee of the school in its meeting held on 25/03/2011, for the approval of the respondent No.1. As requested by the Deputy Director, the respondent No.3, vide letter dated 26/04/2011 furnished the details of the fee structure to the Deputy Director of Education (Plg). 14. In the mean time, being aggrieved by the said letter dated 11/02/2011 and subsequent acts of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 filed Writ Petition No.239/2011 and in this petition, on 3/05/2011, the respondents No.1 and 2 made a statement that the said letter dated 11/02/2011 will be kept in abeyance and that a show cause notice would be issued to the respondent No.3 seeking explanation in relation to the fees that are charged. In view of the said statement, the High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 was served with the show cause notice dated 03/05/2010, to which the respondent No.3 sent reply dated 13/05/2011 showing cause. However, the respondent No.3 received the letter dated 29/06/2011 issued by the respondent No.1 stating that the reply dated 13/05/2011 given by the respondent No.3 to the show cause notice is not satisfactory and that the request of the respondent No.3 to approve the fee structure for the academic year 2011-12 cannot be considered. The respondent No.3 was therefore constrained to file Writ Petition No.412/2011. At the time of hearing of this petition, the respondents No.1 and 2 stated that the order dated 29/06/2011 stands withdrawn and that a fresh decision regarding the fee structure shall be taken after duly hearing the school and the parents. The respondent No.3 was therefore constrained to file Writ Petition No.412/2011. At the time of hearing of this petition, the respondents No.1 and 2 stated that the order dated 29/06/2011 stands withdrawn and that a fresh decision regarding the fee structure shall be taken after duly hearing the school and the parents. The said statement was accepted and the Writ Petition No.412/2011 was disposed of by order dated 01/08/2011 in which the High Court clarified that the status quo as regards the fees that are being presently charged shall be subject to the decision of the Director of Education. Thereafter, on 22/09/2011, the respondent disposed of the matter pertaining to the fee structure for the academic year 2011-12, after duly hearing the respondent No.3 and the petitioners. Certain fees to be charged by the respondent No.3 are not allowed by the said order dated 22/09/2011. However, the petitioners have filed review application dated 07/10/2011 to review the order dated 22/9/2011. 15. It is the case of the respondent No.3 that the fees deposited by the petitioners are not in accordance with the fees which the respondent No.3 was legally entitled to charge. Since the petitioners despite repeated reminders failed to pay the outstanding amounts, the respondent no.3 was compelled to issue the show cause notices dated 19/11/2011. The show cause notices and orders issued to the parents are not in violation of the provisions of the said Act and rules. The respondent No.3 contends that there is no provision under the said Act and rules, to file review. On 22/11/2011, the respondent No.1 has informed Mr. Franky Monteiro that the application for review cannot be considered. No case has been made out by the petitioners and the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 16. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioners have reiterated their contentions and grounds raised in the Writ Petitions. They have stated that until the fee structure is approved by the respondent No.1 as required in terms of section 19(3) of the said Act, the respondent No.3-school needs to charge the fees as per the structure last approved by the respondent No.1, which is for the academic year 2008-09. The petitioners have stated that the authorities have refused to consider the review application without application of mind to the contentions raised therein which has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioners. 17. The petitioners have stated that the authorities have refused to consider the review application without application of mind to the contentions raised therein which has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioners. 17. In the Affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder, the respondent No.3 has denied the contentions of the petitioners which are contrary to and inconsistent with whatever has been stated by it earlier and also in this Affidavit. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to rule 139 of the said Rules which provides as under: "139. Unaided recognised schools to submit returns.- (1) Every unaided recognised private school shall submit returns and documents in accordance with the instruction issued by the Director of Education from time to time. (2) Every return or documents referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be submitted to the Director by the 31st day of July of each year. (3) The accounts and other records maintained by an unaided private school shall be subject to examination by the auditors and inspecting officers authorised by the Director in this behalf and also by any officer authorised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India." Then they have taken us through Sub-section 3 of Section 19 of the said Act which provides as under: "19(3).-The Manager of every unaided recognised school shall, before the commencement of each academic session, file with the Director a full statement of the fees and the charges to be levied by such school with the approval of the Director during the ensuing academic session, and except with the prior approval of the Director, no such school shall charge during the academic session, any fee in excess of the fee specified by its manager in the said statement." 19. The learned counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, have contended that there is no compliance with the provision of rule 139(3) of the said Rules. They would further contend that there is no finding in the said order dated 22/9/2011 about the fees illegally collected by the respondent No.3-school under various heads. According to them, the last approval is for the fee structure for the academic year 2008-09 and thereafter there is no approval in terms of section 19(3) of the said Act and that none of the orders of this High Court approves any fee structure. According to them, the last approval is for the fee structure for the academic year 2008-09 and thereafter there is no approval in terms of section 19(3) of the said Act and that none of the orders of this High Court approves any fee structure. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the action of the respondent No.3 in enforcing an unapproved fee structure is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law. They urge that the respondent No.3 is liable to roll back the fee structure for the years 2010-11 and 201112 to the approved fee structure of 2008-09 and to reimburse excessive fees collected from the parents. The learned counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, have reiterated all the grounds mentioned in the petitions and have read the documents on record. Learned Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias has placed reliance in an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petitions (C) No.7777/09, 8147/09, 8610/09, 8614/09, 9228/09, 11139/09, 10801/09, 6952/09 and 1727/09. 20. On the other hand, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, the learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the respondent No.3, argued that the Director of Education has powers only to approve the fees but he cannot prescribe the same. He has placed reliance in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Modern School Vs. Union Of India and ors." ( AIR 2004 SC 2236 ). He argued that the respondent No.3 is one of the oldest school which is unaided from the beginning, having strength of about 921 students excluding the Pre-Primary Section. According to him, except the petitioners, nobody else is objecting to the fees charged by the respondent No.3. The learned Sr. Counsel contended that the school was always charging as per the approved fee structure of 2008-09, pending further proposal, but in September 2008, the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission were published and the Government of Goa decided to implement the same as from 01/01/2006, and further by circular dated 24/02/2009 directed the managements of unaided schools to follow the provisions of section 13 of the said Act with regard to the salaries of the employees, due to which the respondent No.3-school was placed in a precarious situation. He contended that it was therefore that the respondent No.3, vide letter dated 08/03/2010 forwarded the proposal of fees for the academic year 2010-11 to the respondent No.1 for approval. He argued that it was impossible to run the school by charging the fees as per the approved fee structure of 2008-09 on account of increase in the salaries of the employees. He pointed out that the respondent No.1 had issued the circular dated 16/04/2010 specifying the revised fees, but suddenly by letter dated 06/07/2010, the circular dated 16/04/2010 was withdrawn. He pointed out that the Parents and teachers association in its meeting dated 20/08/2010 resolved to support the fee hike and therefore the respondent No.3 continued to charge fees as per the proposal sent with the letter dated 25/05/2010. He therefore contended that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners now to deny to pay the fees as agreed. He argued that the letter dated 11/02/2011 of the Deputy Director to roll back to the fee structure of 2008-09 forced the respondent No.3 to file the Writ Petition No.239 of 2011 in which sufficient protection was given to the respondent No.3, by this Court. He further argued that against the further order dated 29/06/2011, the respondent No.3 had filed the Writ Petition No.412/2011 and here also the respondent No.3 succeeded and finally by order dated 22/09/2011, the respondent No.1 disposed of the matter pertaining to the fee structure for the academic year 201112, after hearing the management and the petitioners, in which certain fees, proposed to be charged, have not been allowed. The learned counsel, from the details at Exhibit-K, showed that the surplus with the respondent No.3, after all the expenditure, is less than 15% which, according to him, is reasonable. He, thus, argued that the fees collected by the respondent no 3, prior to the order dated 22/09/2011 were not illegal and even otherwise adjustments on account of the order dated 29/06/2011 have been made. He argued that the review application was rightly not considered by the respondent No.1. The learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that the respondent no.3 is ready to consider to give concession or scholarship to the wards of the petitioners, if they apply and make out a case for the same. According to him there is no substance in both the petitions. 21. The learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that the respondent no.3 is ready to consider to give concession or scholarship to the wards of the petitioners, if they apply and make out a case for the same. According to him there is no substance in both the petitions. 21. Perused the material on record and the decisions cited by the parties. 22. Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, all citizens have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions in terms of clause (6) of Article 19. It is now well settled that education is an "occupation" in terms of Article 19(1)(g) and any citizen can establish and maintain an educational institution, however, subject to reasonable restrictions. A private unaided school does not get grants from the Government and would require funds to pay salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff, to ensure maintenance of academic standard, infrastructure, expansion of the school building, co-curricular activities, transport facilities, parking facilities, security and other activities for the students, all for the betterment and growth of the educational institution which ultimately goes to the benefit of the student community. Therefore, charging of fees by private unaided schools is inevitable. Financial burden on each school will be different. Each private unaided school will have its own fee structure depending upon its strength of students, future plans of expansion, standard of imparting education and carrying out other co-curricular activities, etc,. Hence, such schools are bound to have a right to set up a reasonable fee structure and so long as they do not resort to profiteering, there should be no difficulty. 23. In the case of "Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka and ors." ( AIR 2003 SC 724 ), while interpreting the judgment in "TMA Pai Foundation Vs State of Karnataka" ( (2002) 8 SCC 481 ) and answering the question "whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure", the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court has held 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. 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 benefits 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. 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 needs 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..." 24. It is therefore clear that what is forbidden is capitation fee and profiteering. There is no allegation in the present petitions that the respondent No.3 has included capitation fee in the proposed fees structure. The petitioners have not demonstrated by calculations as to how the fee structures proposed by the respondent No.3, from time to time, led to charging exorbitant and arbitrary fees. There is no allegation in the present petitions that the respondent No.3 has included capitation fee in the proposed fees structure. The petitioners have not demonstrated by calculations as to how the fee structures proposed by the respondent No.3, from time to time, led to charging exorbitant and arbitrary fees. In the case of "Modern School" (supra), the Apex has observed that it is well settled by catena of decisions that in the matter of determination of fee structure, the unaided educational institutions exercise a great autonomy as, they, like any other citizen carrying on an occupation, are entitled to a reasonable surplus for development of education and expansion of the institution and therefore a balance has to be struck between autonomy of such institutions and measures to be taken to prevent commercialization of education. It has been held in the case supra that under section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the school has to furnish a full statement of fees in advance before commencement of the academic session and the Director of Education has the authority to regulate the fees. It has been held that the Director is authorized to regulate the fees and other charges to prevent commercialization of education. Even in the Judgment in review petitions in the case of "Action Committee Unaided Private Schools and others Vs. Director of Education and others (2009 (11) Scale 7), it has been reiterated that the Director of Education has the authority to regulate the quantum of fees charged by unaided schools and it has to ensure that the schools are not indulging in profiteering. Section 19(3) of the said Act is akin to section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. Thus, as rightly contended by the learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No.3, the Director has no power to prescribe the fees. Insofar as Rule 139 of the said Rules, which is similar to rule 180 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, is concerned, no doubt, it provides for submission of the returns and documents to the Director and for examination of the accounts and other records maintained by the unaided private school, by the auditors and inspecting officers authorised by the Director and also by any officer authorised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Section 23(1)(d) of the said Act makes the contravention of the said Rules punishable. Section 23(1)(d) of the said Act makes the contravention of the said Rules punishable. Rule 139(3) does not mandate that the accounts and other records shall be maintained by the officers authorised by the Director or by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. In terms of rule 139(3) of the said rules, it is the obligation of the Director of Education to get the accounts and other records of the unaided schools examined through the auditors and inspecting officers authorized by him. However, can it be said that if the accounts which are before the Director, are not audited as required by Rule 139(3) of the said Rules, then he cannot consider and approve the fee structure proposed by the school. Indisputably, the Director of Education has power to regulate the quantum of fees charged by the unaided private schools in order to ensure that these schools do not indulge in profiteering. But, he cannot prescribe the fees. 25. In the same case of "Modern School" (supra), though the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the recognized unaided schools to maintain accounts on principle of accounting applicable to non business organization/ not for profit organization, however, has further held that it was not necessary to issue direction as to how and in what manner an institution should maintain their accounts. It is not the case of the petitioners, in the present petitions, that the respondent No.3 has not maintained accounts and has not submitted them to the Director. Learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent no 3, during the course of arguments, showed the audited statement for the year 2010-11 submitted by the respondent No.3 to the Director of Education. The petitioners say that without the scrutiny of the audited accounts of the previous academic year 2010-11, there could be no approval granted for the fee structure of the next academic year. It is pertinent to note that it is nobody's case that the fee structure for the academic year 2008/09, for which the petitioners have no objection, was approved upon the scrutiny of the audited accounts of the academic year 2007-08. 26. Admittedly, in September, 2008, the Government decided to implement the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01/01/2006. 26. Admittedly, in September, 2008, the Government decided to implement the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01/01/2006. The hike in the fee structure was natural and was triggered by the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations, in order to meet the upward revision in the salaries of the teachers and other employees. The respondent No.3 had therefore forwarded a revised fee structure for the year 2009-10, by taking into account the increased scales in order to enable the school to pay salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff. Though, the respondent No.1 issued the circular dated 24/02/2009 directing the managements of the unaided schools to follow the provisions of section 13 of the said Act, with regard of the salaries of the employees, however, the revised fee structure forwarded by the respondent No.3 was not approved. Pending approval for the fee structure of 2009/2010, the respondent No.3 was charging fees as per the fee structure for 2008-09. One can understand that upon implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission retrospectively as from 01/01/2006, the respondent no.3 would not be in a position to run the school since the funds generated as per the fee structure for 2008-09 would not be sufficient. It is therefore that the respondent No.3, by letter dated 08/03/2010, forwarded the proposal of fee structure for 2010-11. Since the respondent No.3 did not receive any reply, it started charging the fees in accordance with the fees stipulated by the Manager of the school in the statement forwarded to the Director for approval, bonafidely believing that section 19(3) of the said Act allows them to do so. The respondent No.1 by circular dated 16/4/2010 revised the tuition and other fees and accordingly, the respondent No.3, in the managing committee meeting, approved a fee structure to be made effective from 01/06/2010 and vide letter dated 25/05/2010 forwarded the same to the respondent No.1 for sanction and started charging the fees as per the said statement. However, the respondent No.1 by letter dated 06/07/2010 withdrew the circular dated 16/04/2010. The respondent No.3 had already disbursed the salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff and hence it was not now possible for the respondent No.3 to reduce or recover the salaries. However, the respondent No.1 by letter dated 06/07/2010 withdrew the circular dated 16/04/2010. The respondent No.3 had already disbursed the salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff and hence it was not now possible for the respondent No.3 to reduce or recover the salaries. It is pertinent to note that the members of the Parents and Teachers Association held meeting on 28/08/2010 and resolved to support the fee hike by the respondent No.3. In fact, all the parents, with the exception five, agreed to pay and paid the fees of their children in the first quarter of the year 2011-12 itself and upto the end of October 2011. But the matter did not end here. The respondent No.3 was issued a letter dated 11/02/2011 by the Deputy Director of Education (Plg) to roll back to the fee structure for 2008-09. The respondent No.3, by letter dated 24/02/2011, addressed to the said Deputy Director, tried to explain in detail as to how the fee structure was worked out by reference to the expenditure on account of implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and as to how it would be impossible to even pay salaries, if the fees as per the 2008-09 were to be charged. The respondent No.3 has produced on record a chart showing the calculations as per the fees approved for 2008-09. The grievance of the respondent No.3 appears to be genuine. Vide letter dated 25/04/2011, the respondent No.3 forwarded the fee structure for the academic year 2011-12, as approved by its managing committee in the meeting held on 25/03/2011. The Deputy Director of Education by letter dated 18/04/2011 asked for some details and the respondent No.3 furnished those details by letter dated 26/04/2011. The respondent No.3 started charging the fees as per the revised statement and thereafter approached this High Court in Writ Petition No.239/2011. In this petition, the respondents No.1 and 2 made a statement that the letter dated 11/2/2011 will be kept in abeyance and that a show cause notice would be issued to the respondent No.3 seeking explanation in relation to the fee structure. Therefore, there was sufficient protection to the respondent No.3 to charge the fees in the manner as it was doing prior to the receipt of the letter dated 11/02/2011. Then the show cause notice was issued and the same was replied by the respondent No.3. Therefore, there was sufficient protection to the respondent No.3 to charge the fees in the manner as it was doing prior to the receipt of the letter dated 11/02/2011. Then the show cause notice was issued and the same was replied by the respondent No.3. But, by letter dated 29/06/2011, the respondent No.1 informed that the request of the respondent No.3 to approve the fee structure for the academic year 2011-12 cannot be considered. Therefore, the respondent No.3 again approached this High Court with the Writ Petition No.412/2011 and at the time of the hearing, the respondents No.1 and 2, on 1/08/2011, made a statement that the said order dated 29/06/2011 stands withdrawn and that a fresh decision would be taken after duly hearing the school and the parents. The said statement was accepted by this Court and by order dated 01/08/2011, this Court clarified that the status quo as regards the fees that are being presently charged shall be subject to the decision of the Director of Education. That allowed the respondent No.3 to charge the fees in the manner as it was doing earlier. Subsequently, by order dated 22/09/2011, the respondent No.1 disposed of the matter pertaining to the fee structure for the academic year 2011-12. Certain fees included by the respondent No.3 in its statement have not been allowed by the respondent No.1. The respondent no.3 has not challenged this order. The respondent No.3 then requested the parents who had not paid the fees of their wards, to pay the same. In the circumstances above, no malafides can be attributed to the respondent No.3. 27. Learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No.3 invited our attention to the details of the fees charged, which details are at Exhibit-K. He showed that the surplus, after all the expenditure, is less than 15%. Development fees at the rate of 15% of the tuition fees per year are being charged. In the case of "Modern School"(supra), it has been held that on account of increased cost due to inflation, the management is entitled to create Development Fund Account, for which the management is required to collect development fees. Development fees at the rate of 15% of the tuition fees per year are being charged. In the case of "Modern School"(supra), it has been held that on account of increased cost due to inflation, the management is entitled to create Development Fund Account, for which the management is required to collect development fees. The surplus of 15%, in our view, cannot be termed as excessive profit but is reasonable surplus, required for betterment and growth of the respondent no.3-school, the betterment of education in the school and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. We have gone through the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Writ Petitions No.7777/09, 8147/09, 8610/09, etc,. relied upon by the petitioners. The same does not assist the petitioners to establish their case of unreasonable fees being charged, without following the mandate of law. We are not inclined to believe that there is commercialization and exploitation done by the respondent no.3. 28. The respondent No.1, having disposed of the matter pertaining to the fee structure of the respondent No.3, for the academic year 2011-12, after duly hearing the management as well as the petitioners, need not be directed to strictly follow the provision of scrutiny of the audited account of the preceding year in terms of section 19 (3) of the said Act. The fee structure in terms of the said order dated 22/09/2011 for the academic year 2011-12 shall be deemed to be the approved fee structure for that year. There was no substance in the review application filed by the petitioners and it was rightly not considered by the Director. The amount deposited by the petitioner of Writ Petition No.748/2011 before this court, along with accrued interest, shall be paid to the respondent No.3. The School shall give reasonable time to the said petitioner, if further amount is required to be paid by him, in terms of the fee structure approved by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 shall give reasonable time to the petitioners of Writ Petition No.83/2012 to pay the fees of their wards in terms of the fee structure approved by the respondent no.1. The respondent No.3 shall reimburse excessive fees, if any, collected from the parents for the academic year 2011-12, or shall adjust the same in the future fees. The respondent No.3 shall give reasonable time to the petitioners of Writ Petition No.83/2012 to pay the fees of their wards in terms of the fee structure approved by the respondent no.1. The respondent No.3 shall reimburse excessive fees, if any, collected from the parents for the academic year 2011-12, or shall adjust the same in the future fees. The observations/ directions, as above, are made qua the respondent no.3 only and shall not have any bearing on the decision in Writ Petition No.366 of 2009. 29. With the above observations, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.