Judgment R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Writ Petitioner School which is an unaided private school has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by Private School Fee Determination Committee on the ground of arbitrariness and that it is not in conformity with Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009). 2. Writ Petitioner School is run in the Campus of I.I.T., Chennai-36. It is managed by I.I.T. Madras Educational Trust. The Writ Petitioner school is affiliated to the Directorate of School Education, Chennai and has been functioning since 1963. Writ Petitioner school has recognition for Classes from L.K.G. to 12th standard and has considerable strength of around 1800 students. 3. Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 was enacted on 07.08.2009. Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Rules, 2009 came into force on 07.12.2009. Validity of the Act and the Rules (except Section 11 of the Act and Rules 4(4) and 4(5) of the Rules) was upheld in Tamil Nadu Nursery, Matriculation and Higher Secondary Schools Association Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in( 2010 (4) CTC 353 ). 4. By G.O.(Ms) No.320, School Education Department, dated 07.12.2009, Government constituted a School Fee Determination Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice K.Govindarajan, a retired Judge of this Court and the Committee prepared questionnaire and sent the same to the private schools through the Chief Educational Officer. To the said questionnaire, the Writ Petitioner school sent its response. After considering the response, order was passed by the Fee Determination Committee fixing the fee to be collected for the years 2010-11 to 2012-13. 5. A batch of Writ Petitions came to be filed challenging the order of the Committee dated 07.05.2010 and the press release. By the order dated 14.09.2010 in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.18854 of 2010, the single Judge of this Court passed an interim order restraining the State Government from enforcing the order of Fee Fixation Committee for the academic year 2010-2011. The said order of the single Judge was challenged in W.A.Nos.2035 of 2010 etc. batch. By the order dated 05.10.2010, the First Bench of this Court disposed of the appeals in P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu Vs. The said order of the single Judge was challenged in W.A.Nos.2035 of 2010 etc. batch. By the order dated 05.10.2010, the First Bench of this Court disposed of the appeals in P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu Vs. Federation of Association of Private Schools in T.N. ( 2010 (5) CTC 721 ) interalia issuing directions directing the Committee to consider the objections of 6400 institutions by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the institutions to enable them to submit further materials for consideration of the Committee and thereafter pass individual orders by considering all the materials. The said order of First Bench was challenged in the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.36589 to 36591 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.12.2010. 6. In pursuance to the direction issued by the First Bench in 2010 (5) CTC 721 , fresh questionnaires were sent to the schools and the Writ Petitioner school has submitted its response along with fee proposed by them and also the supporting materials. The Committee headed by Justice K.Raviraja Pandian passed the impugned order dated 03.06.2011 fixing the fee structure for next three academic years i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 7. On behalf of Writ Petitioner school, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Committee did not take into account the actual salary paid to teaching and non-teaching staff and the various other statutory financial commitments of the school. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Committee had erroneously taken into consideration only a sum of Rs.1,52,22,337/-as the total salary for all the staff members; whereas the actual salary paid during 2009-2010 works out to Rs.1,92,02,127/- and during 2010-2011, Rs.2,40,95,735/-as per the audited accounts. Drawing our attention to the typed set of papers, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that as per the recommendation of School Managing Committee, the student strength was reduced to 35 per section from L.K.G. to 5th standard and for standards from 6th to 10th standard the strength was reduced to 40 students per section and 45 students per section for standards 11th and 12th standards. In view of reduction in the strength of the student in each section there was an increase in number of teachers and that the salary paid to teaching staff works out to Rs.1,72,17,180/- per annum; whereas the Committee had taken into account only to Rs.1,23,46,981/- per annum. In view of reduction in the strength of the student in each section there was an increase in number of teachers and that the salary paid to teaching staff works out to Rs.1,72,17,180/- per annum; whereas the Committee had taken into account only to Rs.1,23,46,981/- per annum. According to Writ Petitioner school, the salary to teaching staff and non-teaching staff are to be paid on par with VI Pay Commission and the salary has risen nearly by 33% and that the Committee had not taken into account the impact of increase in pay due to Pay Commission. It was also submitted that the School has various financial commitments viz., (i) increase in Dearness Allowance declared by the State Government twice in a year; (ii) 3% annual increments to staff members; (iii) Management's contribution to Employees Provident Funds; (iv) Payment of gratuity to staff members, surrender and encashment of leave salary etc. and (v) Ex-gratia Pongal Bonus and the same were not taken into consideration by the Committee. 8. Drawing our attention to the order of this Court in W.p.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch dated 03.5.2012, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order passed by the Committee in respect of similarly placed schools were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the Committee for re-determining the fee and the learned Senior Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Committee to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the guidelines issued in the said order dated 03.5.2012. However, the learned Senior Counsel for Writ Petitioner has submitted that the present Writ Petition has been filed only on 24.09.2012 beyond the cut off date is not claiming benefit of interim arrangement granted in the earlier order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch. 9. We have heard Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General appearing along with Mr.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) for Respondents. 10. In a batch of Writ Petitions by the common order dated 03.05.2012 (one of us was a member – Justice R.Banumathi), the orders passed by the Committee headed by Justice K.Raviraja Pandian were set aside and by framing certain guidelines, the matters were remitted back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh. 10. In a batch of Writ Petitions by the common order dated 03.05.2012 (one of us was a member – Justice R.Banumathi), the orders passed by the Committee headed by Justice K.Raviraja Pandian were set aside and by framing certain guidelines, the matters were remitted back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh. The Writ Petitioner school is also similarly placed and therefore, the fee structure need to be redetermined in the light of those guidelines. 11. The operative portion of the order in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch in LAKSHMI MATRICULATION SCHOOL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THE SECRETARY TOGOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS, dated 03.05.2012 reads as follows:- "152. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders in all the writ petitions are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the School Fee Determination Committee for consideration of the matters afresh. Fee structure approval form shall be given to Writ Petitioner Schools calling upon them to produce the details and documents required to be furnished. All the Writ Petitioner Schools shall propose the fee structure afresh with fresh or additional materials/Audit statements showing the expenditure and income. The Committee shall give personal hearing to each of the Writ Petitioner Schools and also afford reasonable opportunity to all the Writ Petitioner Schools and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of December 2012. 153. In respect of unaided Non-Minority Educational Institutions, the School Fee Determination Committee shall keep in view the guidelines in Para Nos.88 to 117 and 152 of this order. For the reasons stated in Para Nos.109 and 110, all the unaided Non-Minority Educational Institutions shall be entitled to surplus for development i.e., Village and Town Panchayats at 10%; Municipalities and District Headquarters at 12½% and Corporations at 15%. 154.For the reasons stated in Para No.111, for Infrastructure Grading, there shall be an increase in fee - 7½% to 10% depending on the availability of the infrastructure in the Schools." Considering the grounds raised in the Writ Petition, the earlier order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch is applicable to the Writ Petitioner school also and setting aside the impugned order, this Writ Petition is remitted back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh, in the light of the guidelines in the said Order dated 03.05.2012. 12. batch is applicable to the Writ Petitioner school also and setting aside the impugned order, this Writ Petition is remitted back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh, in the light of the guidelines in the said Order dated 03.05.2012. 12. In the result, the impugned order dated 3.6.2011 passed by Private Schools Fee Determination Committee is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the earlier order dated 3.5.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.