Judgment :- R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is the order of the Schools Fee Determination Committee dated 22.12.2011 in and by which the Committee rejected the objection filed by the writ petitioner school on the ground that the Tamilnadu Schools (Regulation of collection of Fee) Act, 2009 provides only one time redetermination and not more than that. 2. Doveton Protestant Schools Association is a society registered under Societies Registration Act. The said society is running Doveton Group of Schools of which the writ petitioner school is one such school situated in No.8, General Collins Road, Choolai, Chennai – 600 012. 3. In order to provide regulation of collection of fees by schools in the State of Tamil Nadu,Tamil Nadu Government enacted Tamilnadu Schools (Regulation of collection of Fee) Act, 2009 and the Act came into force on 7.8.2009. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 16 of the Act, the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Rules, 2009 came into force on 7.12.2009. In a batch of writ petitions challenging the vires of the Act and the Rules, by judgment dated 9.4.2010 – Tamil Nadu Nursery, Matriculation and Higher Secondary Schools Association Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in( 2010 (4) CTC 353 ), the First Bench upheld its validity except Section 11 of the Act and Rules 4(4) and 4(5) of the Rules giving power for entering the schools for such inspection and seizure. Special Leave Petition – S.L.P.No.13428 of 2010 filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 11.5.2010. 4. Even before those writ petitions challenging the validity of the Act came to be filed, by G.O.Ms.No.320, School Education Department dated 7.12.2010, Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice K.Govindarajan. The Committee prepared the questionnaire and sent the same to 10934 private schools through respective Chief Educational Officers. After getting response from the individual schools, on 7.5.2010, the orders including the impugned orders in these writ petitions were came to be passed by the Fee Determination Committee fixing the fee to be collected for the years 2010-11 to 2012-13. In the impugned orders, the Committee called upon the Schools not to collect any other amount from the students under any head over and above the said amount for another three years. In the impugned orders, the Committee called upon the Schools not to collect any other amount from the students under any head over and above the said amount for another three years. Challenging the said order of the School Fee Determination Committee, dated 7.5.2010, these writ petitions are filed. 5. By the judgment dated 5.10.2010, in P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu Vs. Federation of Association of Private Schools in T.N. ( 2010(5) CTC 721 ),reported in 2010(5) CTC 721 , while dealing in Writ Appeal No.2035 of 2010 and the batch of writ petitions challenging the order of the Committee dated 7.5.2010, the First Bench directed 6400 institutions to submit their objections to the Fee Fixation Order passed by the Committee. The First Bench further directed that 6400 institutions shall be entitled to personal hearing and also be entitled to submit further materials at the time of personal hearing before the Committee, if they so desire. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “24. After having considered the entire facts of the case and the law discussed hereinabove, in our considered opinion, the impugned interim order passed by the Single Judge cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. We, therefore, in order to give a quietus to the entire controversy dispose of these Appeals by passing the following order: 1. The 6400 Institutions, who have submitted their objections to the Fee Fixation order passed by the Committee, shall be entitled to pursue their objections before the Committee; 2. Pending consideration of the objections, all these 6400 Institutions shall not be entitled to collect any further fees than what has been collected by them at the beginning of the academic year in June 2010 i.e., at the rate fixed for the previous academic year 2009-2010. The amount of fees so collected if be in excess of what has been fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee in its preliminary order dated 07.05.2010, that excess component shall be deemed to be retained as deposit by the respective Institutions and the same shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the Fee Fixation Committee; 3. The amount of fees so collected if be in excess of what has been fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee in its preliminary order dated 07.05.2010, that excess component shall be deemed to be retained as deposit by the respective Institutions and the same shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the Fee Fixation Committee; 3. If any additional fee has been collected by the 6400 Institutions after the interim order in the Writ Petitions, the same shall also be retained as a deposit and the same shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the Fee Fixation Committee; 4. The 4,534 Institutions who have accepted the order passed by the Fee Fixation Committee shall not be entitled to collect any fee in excess of what has been permitted in the order of the Fee Fixation Committee; 5. The Committee is directed to consider the objections of the 6,400 Institutions by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Institutions to enable them to submit materials for consideration of the Committee and thereafter, pass individual orders by considering all the materials as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; 6. The 6,400 Institutions shall be entitled to submit to the Committee further materials at the time of personal hearing before the Committee if they so desire; 7. No institution shall demand from any parent any fee more than what has been indicated above and if any specific Complaint is received by the authorities against any such Institution, the same shall be considered in accordance with law by the Appropriate Authority after notice to the concerned Institution.” 6. By the Order dated 7.5.2010, the Committee determined the fee structure for the students in the petitioner school and the same was received by the writ petitioner School on 28.7.2010. The petitioner school sought to file its memo of objection before the Committee, but was directed to file the same with Chief Educational Officer and accordingly the petitioner school filed its objections on 10.8.2010. According to the petitioner, on 6.1.2012, the petitioner school received the impugned order dated 22.12.2011 rejecting the memo of objection. The petitioner school sought to file its memo of objection before the Committee, but was directed to file the same with Chief Educational Officer and accordingly the petitioner school filed its objections on 10.8.2010. According to the petitioner, on 6.1.2012, the petitioner school received the impugned order dated 22.12.2011 rejecting the memo of objection. The said order reads as under: “In this case Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Govindarajan has fixed the fees on May 2010 and upon the objection by the school authorities, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Raviraja Pandian had redetermined the fee on 27.05.2011 and that reached finality as per Section 6(5) of Act 2009. The Act provides only one time re-determination and not more than that. There is no arithmetical or calculation msitake pointed out. So the memo of objection is rejected.” 7. Case of the petitioner is that Justice Raviraja Pandian Committee did not pass any order redetermining the fees of the petitioner School, much less on 27.5.2011 and while so the Committee was not right in saying that the earlier order came to be passed on 27.5.2011 and the matter had reached finality as per Section 6(5) of the Act and therefore Petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 22.12.2011. 8. Heard Mr.Siddharth Bahety, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 9. On instructions, Mr.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that Justice Raviraja Pandian Committee did not determine the fee collected by the writ petitioner school and due to oversight, in the impugned order, it has been mistakenly stated that Justice Raviraja Pandian Committee had re-determined the fees on 27.05.2011. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the Committee had today (22.08.2012) sent a notice of hearing to the writ petitioner school for personal hearing with regard to fee fixation. In this regard, learned Additional Government Pleader has also produced 'Position Note' submitted by the 2nd respondent, which reads as under: "Due to misguided facts the order of the finality W.P.No.6073/2012 dated 22.12.2011 under Section 6(5) of the Act happened to get signed; also due to the failure of proper representation, had there been representation of the correct situation of the facts either before of after making this impugned order, the mistakes could have been accordingly avoided or rectified. However, due diligence will be taken in all such matters." 10. However, due diligence will be taken in all such matters." 10. The above statement of the 2nd respondent is recorded. We are of the view that the petitioner school has to be given an opportunity of personal hearing, as directed by the First Bench in 2010(5) CTC 721 referred supra. 11. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the School Fee Determination Committee. The School Fee Determination Committee shall afford personal hearing to the petitioner school and the petitioner school is also at liberty to produce materials in addition to the objections/materials already furnished to the School Fee Determination Committee. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.