Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. 1. By this common judgment, present petitions are being disposed of since issues raised are somewhat similar. 2. Himachal Education Promotion Society (petitioner in CWP No.8505/10) is a registered Institution having its College at Nalagarh. 3. CWP No. 1473 of 2011 has been filed by H.P. B.Ed. Colleges Welfare Association. In both these petitions, petitioners in effect have assailed Notification dated 7.8.2010 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Himachal Pradesh University (respondent No.2) (hereinafter referred to as the University) fixing the fee for private unaided managed B.Ed. colleges affiliated to the University. 4. Himachal Pradesh B.Ed. Colleges Association is a registered body and has filed CWP No. 1862 of 2011. In addition to the aforesaid prayers, they have also assailed Notification dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure P-9), whereby the University has charged levy @ 10%, on the tuition fee fixed @ `39,600/- in terms of Notification dated 7.8.2010. They are also aggrieved by the Notification dated 5.10.2009 whereby private unaided B.Ed. colleges have been asked to pay annual affiliation fee and inspection fee, on revised rates. BACK DROP 5. In exercise of powers under Section 31 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to ‘NCTE Act’), the Central Government has framed the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to NCTE Rules). Within the State of Himachal Pradesh, B.Ed. Colleges run by private Institutions have been established in accordance with the provisions of the NCTE Act. The number of seats per Institution, for which students can be admitted for undertaking their education in the B.Ed. courses is also determined by the authorities under the NCTE Act. However, for undertaking examination, these institutions are affiliated with the University, duly established under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 (herein after referred to as the University Act). Educational Institutions are affiliated, after inspection, in terms of the Act, statute and calendar of this University. 6. In the year 1998, the Government of Himachal Pradesh, pursuant to the decision taken by the Committee, headed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, comprising of Dr. C.L. Kundu, Vice Chancellor of the University and Dr. Suraj Pathak, Principal of MLSM College, Sundernagar, as its Members, fixed the tuition fee payable by the students admitted by the institutions for the B.Ed. C.L. Kundu, Vice Chancellor of the University and Dr. Suraj Pathak, Principal of MLSM College, Sundernagar, as its Members, fixed the tuition fee payable by the students admitted by the institutions for the B.Ed. courses, in the following manner: Subsided seats -Rs.15,000/- per annum Non-subsided seats -Rs.12,000/- per annum. 7. This Committee itself stipulated that fee would be increased by 10% every year. 8. On 13.6.2002, the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in terms of the decision taken by the Committee, decided to revise the fee structure for the private B.Ed. colleges with respect to the academic year 2002-2003 to the following effect:- Subsided seats -Rs.19,500/- per annumNon-subsided seats - Rs.25,000/- per annum. The Government also decided to levy charges @ 10% on tuition fee. 9. With respect to the academic year 2006-07, the Committee again revised the tuition fee, to the following effect:- Subsided seats -Rs.21,450/- per annumNon-subsided seats - Rs.35,750/- per annum. This was so done by the State Government vide communication dated 24.8.2006 (Annexure P-6). 10. With respect to the academic session 2009-10 for admission to the B.Ed. course, the University issued prospectus, prescribing the following fee structure on the basis of government letter dated 22.8.2006: “1. Tuition Fee 1. Subsidized seats Rs.21450/- 2. Non-subsidized seats Rs.35750/- II Annual Charges S. No. Particulars of the Item Amount 1. Admission Fee 1080.00 2. Re-admission Charges 110.00 3. Building Fund 1080.00 4. Repair and replacement furniture and books of 540.00 5. House Exams 110.00 6. Magazine fund 30.00 7. Identify Card 10.00 8. Medical fund 60.00 9. Student aid fund 270.00 10. Electricity and Water 60.00 11. College Badge 10.00 12. Society Fund 60.00 13. Sports Fee 110.00 14. Cultural activity fund 110.00 Total 3640.00 III Monthly Charges S. No. Particulars of the Item Amount Annual 1. Amalgamated Fund 60.00 720.00 2. Lib. And Reading Room 60.00 720.00 3. Practical for Science and Music 60.00 720.00 4. Other Student Activities 130.00 1560.00 5. Computer Fee 220.00 2640.00 6360.00 IV Library Security Charges (Refundable) Rs.1000 V. University Charges 1. 1. Levy Charges *10% levy charges on tuition fee only. 2. 2. Other Charges As per existing rules of HPU *The levy charges 10% on tuition fee only will be charges by H.P. University as University charges from B.Ed. students at the time of Counselling.” 11. 1. Levy Charges *10% levy charges on tuition fee only. 2. 2. Other Charges As per existing rules of HPU *The levy charges 10% on tuition fee only will be charges by H.P. University as University charges from B.Ed. students at the time of Counselling.” 11. However vide communication dated 6.5.2010, the State Government communicated the following decision to the University:- “I am directed to refer to your letter No. 4-45/2010-HPU (Acad.)-4190 dated 10.02.2010 on the subject cited above and to say that as the H.P. University is the affiliating & regulating body for B.Ed. course, therefore, it has been decided that fee structure in respect of private B.Ed. colleges be fixed/revised at University level. The fee structure of private B.Ed. Colleges in the State earlier revised by the State Government vide letter of even number dated the 22nd August, 2006 has been withdrawn with immediate effect vide this Department letter of even number dated the 6th May, 2010. You are, therefore, requested to kindly fix/revise the Fee structure for the privately managed B.Ed. Colleges of the State under intimation to this Department.” 12. Petitioner in CWP No. 8505 of 2010 approached this Court, inter alia, making several grievances, including fixation of fee structure by the University. Vide judgment dated 29.7.2010 passed in CWP No. 4500 of 2009, titled as Himachal Education Promotion Society and another vs. State of H.P. and another, this Court clarified that henceforth there shall be no free or subsidized seats in the B.Ed. Courses and uniform fee shall be charged from all the students admitted to the B.Ed. Courses of petitioner No.2-Institution. The Court categorically held that in cases of unaided professional Institution, there cannot be any subsidized/ free seats for the simple reason that State had not incurred any expenditure in establishment thereof. 13. Pursuant to the power so delegated by the Government, the University took a decision for fixing the fee structure vide impugned Notification dated 7.8.2010, which reads as under:- “As per decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 4500/2009 titled Himachal Education Promotion Society and another V/s State of H.P. and another, the Vice Chancellor has been pleasedto implement the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court and decided that uniform fee in B.Ed. admission will be charged amounting to Rs.39,600/- which is meant for both the categories i.e. subsidized and non-subsidized in all the Private B.Ed. Colleges affiliated to H.P. University from the academic session 2010-11 till further orders.”(Emphasis supplied) 14. Quite apparently, a uniform admission fee with respect to all seats has now been fixed by the University at `39,600/-. At this juncture, it be only noticed that the decision is silent as to whether, in addition to the same, students were required to pay other annual and monthly charges as stipulated by the earlier Committees/prospectus or not. Hence, it is assumed that the term “Uniform Fee” pertains only to the tuition fee and no other charges as stipulated in the Prospectus issued by the University. 15. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, University has issued a communication dated 15.12.2010, conveying that levy charges @ 10% on the tuition fee are charged only from the College concerned. This communication is also under challenge. Petitioners vide Notification dated 27.11.2010 have also been asked to pay annual affiliation fee @ 1,50,000/- and inspection fee on revised rates. 6. Petitioners i.e. Himachal Educational Society and another took up the matter with various authorities and also filed CWP No. 8505 of 2010 wherein, this Court by way of interim order dated 21.2.2011, directed the respondents to re-consider the matter. Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P., vide order dated 20.4.2011 directed the University to decide the issue. Petitioners’ contention stand rejected. Fee Structure 17. Section 3 of the NCTE Act provides for establishment of a Council known as the National Council for Teacher Education. Section 12 of the NCTE Act lays down the functions to be performed by the said Council. It specifically empowers the Government to lay down guidelines pertaining to fixation of tuition fee and other fee chargeable by the recognized Institution. Section 32 of the NCTE Act also empowers the Council to frame regulations with regard to tuition fee chargeable by the Institution(s). 18. National Council for Teacher Education (Guidelines for Regulation of Tuition Fees and other fees chargeable by unaided teacher education institutions) Regulation, 2002 (for short, Regulations, 2002) have been framed by the Council under the provisions of the NCTE Act. 18. National Council for Teacher Education (Guidelines for Regulation of Tuition Fees and other fees chargeable by unaided teacher education institutions) Regulation, 2002 (for short, Regulations, 2002) have been framed by the Council under the provisions of the NCTE Act. In terms of these Regulations, the State Government is authorized to constitute a State Level Committee for fixing the fee payable by the students with respect to the Institutions operating on no grant-in-aid/ self-financing basis within the State. Subsequently, these Regulations were amended by virtue of provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education (Guidelines for Regulation of Tuition Fees and other fees chargeable by unaided teacher education institutions) Amendment Regulations, 2010. However, power with the State Government to fix the fee through a State Level Committee remains unamended. 19. The issue with regard to subsidized seats/non-subsidized seats in Educational Institutions came up for consideration for the first time before the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others versus State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 8 SCC 481 . The Apex Court, while dealing with private un-aided non-minority educational institutions, held that the State has a right to prescribe qualifications which are necessary for admission whereas the private unaided colleges have a right to admit students of their choice. The fee structure has to be reasonable without the element of profiteering. The fee structure must take into consideration the need to generate funds to be utilized for betterment and growth of the educational institution(s), the betterment of education in that institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. The institutions are at liberty to decide whether they desire to seek any aid from the Government and also determine the scale of fee that can be charged from the students. The Court specifically held that “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”. But here it also cautioned that since the object of setting up of an educational institution is by definition “charitable”, the object should not be to make profit. But here it also cautioned that since the object of setting up of an educational institution is by definition “charitable”, the object should not be to make profit. A reasonable revenue surplus can be generated by the institution(s) for the purpose of development of education and expansion of the institution.Significantly, while dealing with question 5 (c) pertaining to fixation of fee, the Court clarified that “fees to be charged by unaided institutions cannot be regulated but no institution should charge capitation fee”. 20. To clarify certain issues which had crept up pursuant to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation (supra), a Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education and another vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2003) 6 SCC 697 , issued directions that a Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge be nominated by the Chief Justice of the State, consisting of other members, for the purposes of determining the fee to be paid by the students with regard to the courses undertaken by them in various un-aided educational institutions. 21. It cannot be disputed that such Committee was duly constituted by the State of H.P. and certain recommendations were made. However, none of the parties before this Court have referred to and relied upon the recommendations so made by the Committee. It is also not clear as to whether such Committee had made recommendations with regard to the fee structure pertaining to educational institutions imparting training in B.Ed. course. Hence, it is assumed that no fee was fixed by such Committee with regard to the Courses or the Educational Institutions in question. 22. Later on another Constitution Bench (7 Judges) of the Apex Court in P.A.Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537 , inter alia, clarified that directions issued with regard to constitution of Committees was a stop-gap/adhoc arrangement till such time suitable legislation or regulations were framed by the State. It further clarified that the Committees regulating the fee structure would continue to exist but only as a temporary measure, an inevitable passing phase, until respective Governments devise a suitable mechanism and appoint a competent authority in accordance with law. The Court specifically issued the following directions:- “129. It further clarified that the Committees regulating the fee structure would continue to exist but only as a temporary measure, an inevitable passing phase, until respective Governments devise a suitable mechanism and appoint a competent authority in accordance with law. The Court specifically issued the following directions:- “129. In Pai Foundation, it has been very clearly held at several places that unaided professional institutions should be given greater autonomy in determination of admission procedure and fee structure. State regulation should be minimal and only with a view to maintain fairness and transparency in admission procedure and to check exploitation of the students by charging exorbitant money or capitation fees.” “141. Our answer to Question-3 is that every institution is free to devise its own fee structure but the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering. No capitation fee can be charged.” “148. A fortiori, we do not see any impediment to the constitution of the Committees as a stopgap or adhoc arrangement made in exercise of the power conferred on this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution until a suitable legislation or regulation framed by the State steps in. Such Committees cannot be equated with Unni Krishnan Committees which were supposed to be permanent in nature.” “149. However, we would like to sound a note of caution to such Committees. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have severely criticised the functioning of some of the Committees so constituted. It was pointed out by citing concrete examples that some of the Committees have indulged in assuming such powers and performing such functions as were never given or intended to be given to them by Islamic Academy. Certain decisions of some of the Committees were subjected to serious criticism by pointing out that the fee structure approved by them was abysmally low which has rendered the functioning of the institutions almost impossible or made the institutions run into losses. In some of the institutions, the teachers have left their job and migrated to other institutions as it was not possible for the management to retain talented and highly qualified teachers against the salary permitted by the Committees. Retired High Court Judges heading the Committees are assisted by experts in accounts and management. They also have the benefit of hearing the contending parties. Retired High Court Judges heading the Committees are assisted by experts in accounts and management. They also have the benefit of hearing the contending parties. We expect the Committees, so long as they remain functional, to be more sensitive and to act rationally and reasonably with due regard for realities. They should refrain from generalizing fee structures and, where needed, should go into accounts, schemes, plans and budgets of an individual institution for the purpose of finding out what would be an ideal and reasonable fee structure for that institution.” “150. We make it clear that in case of any individual institution, if any of the Committees is found to have exceeded its powers by unduly interfering in the administrative and financial matters of the unaided private professional institutions, the decision of the Committee being quasi-judicial in nature, would always be subject to judicial review.” 23. Now, undisputedly with regard to the B.Ed. courses and the Petitioner(s)-Institution(s) there is a specific legislation with regard to fixation of fee structure. The NCTE Act and Regulations of 2002 and 2010 are there. Significantly, between the years 2002 and 2006 State itself had constituted three Committees for fixing the fee structure. It be noticed that in the year 2002, when fee was fixed by the Committee constituted by the State of H.P., the Vice Chancellor of the University was one of its members. In terms of the proceedings of the Committee, fee was to be increased by 10/15% every year, whereas in the instant case respondents have not taken this factor into account. The State accepted such recommendations and also implemented the same. 24. Significantly, it is not the case of any one of the respondents that either the petitioners or any one of the Educational Institutions established within the State of Himachal Pradesh are charging either capitation fee or fee in excess of the prescribed limits so fixed by various Committees constituted between the year 2002 to 2006and 2010 or the limits prescribed in the prospectus so issued by the University for the years 2009-10, 2010-11. 25. But all of a sudden, State decided to change the course and adopted a rather unusual procedure. State absolved its statutory duty in setting up the State Level Committee and in turn delegated its power, without any authority or jurisdiction, to the University. This was so done in terms of communication dated 6.5.2010. 25. But all of a sudden, State decided to change the course and adopted a rather unusual procedure. State absolved its statutory duty in setting up the State Level Committee and in turn delegated its power, without any authority or jurisdiction, to the University. This was so done in terms of communication dated 6.5.2010. Public authority must act in a rationale manner. Power cannot be allowed to be delegated unless and until a delegate is specifically empowered or authorized to do so in accordance with law. The University had no jurisdiction, authority or power, under any of its statutes to fix the fee structure with regard to the B.Ed. courses of the petitioner-Institutions. Such action of the State as also that of the University is thus illegal. 26. On the power of delegation, my attention has been drawn by Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner to the decisions of the Apex Court in Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and another vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, (1994) 5 SCC 346 , State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) vs. Shivabalak Gaurishankar Dube and others, AIR 1965 SC 661 , and Marathwada University vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132 . These decisions lay down the law that a delegate cannot delegate power unless specifically so authorized. 27. To support their action, Mr. Negi, learned counsel for the University, has invited my attention to the provisions of Section 27 of the NCTE Act. In my considered view, this provision is inapplicable. All that the Section stipulates is that the Council may, by general or special order, delegate to the chairperson or to any other member or to any officer of the Regional Committee, such of its powers and functions under the Act, except the power to make regulations under Section 32. The section is exclusionary in nature and manner Section 32 of the NCTE Act, which empowers the Council to frame Regulations with regard to tuition fee is specifically excluded. Hence the plea only merits rejection. 28. My attention has also been invited to sub-section (15) of Section 6 as also sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the University Act, to contend that the University has powers to do all things as may be necessary, incidental or ancillary to withdraw or in all or any of the act of the University, which according to Mr. 28. My attention has also been invited to sub-section (15) of Section 6 as also sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the University Act, to contend that the University has powers to do all things as may be necessary, incidental or ancillary to withdraw or in all or any of the act of the University, which according to Mr. Negi, would also include the power to determine fee structure in respect of private unaided educational institution. On first brush, the view appears to be plausible, but then it be only noticed that the petitioner(s)-institutions have neither been established nor do they belong to or are managed, controlled, financed by the University, under its Act. Significantly, establishment, control and regulation of all these institutions are governed by a specific Central Legislation i.e. the NCTE Act, which itself is a complete Code and mechanism for the said purpose. 29. Keeping in view the provisions of the Regulations (2002), which specifically require constitution of a State Level Committee headed by the Secretary Incharge of teacher education of the State Government and of which Secretary of Finance, Department of the State Government amongst others, are to be its members, the action of the respondent-State in delegating the power to the respondent-University for fixing the fee structure of the petitioners-Institutions, to the course of B.Ed., is thus illegal and unsustainable in law. Neither in the NCTE Act nor in the Regulations there is any power, with the State Government to further delegate the power so conferred upon a specific Committee, to the University with which the educational institutions are affiliated. As such, impugned order dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure P-8) is quashed. Also communication dated 6.5.2010 delegating the power to the University is quashed. 30. There is yet another glaring error. Notification dated 7.8.2010 specifically records that the decision has been taken by the University to “implement the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court”, reference of which is with regard to CWP No. 4500 of 2009. Perusal of the said judgment would only show that there was no direction whatsoever, either to the University or the State to revise the fee so fixed by the Committees. In fact fixation of fee by such Committees was neither an issue nor subject matter of adjudication by the Court in the said petition. Perusal of the said judgment would only show that there was no direction whatsoever, either to the University or the State to revise the fee so fixed by the Committees. In fact fixation of fee by such Committees was neither an issue nor subject matter of adjudication by the Court in the said petition. All that the Court held was that “there shall be uniform fee for all the students admitted to B.Ed. course of petitioner No.2”. In effect the Court equated the subsidized seats with that of non-subsidized seats. 31. The matter, however, does not rest here. Petitioners are claiming that since the Committee constituted by the Government of H.P., headed by the Secretary (Education) itself had fixed fee structure with regard to non-subsidized seats @ `25,000/- per annum to be annually increased @ 10/15% per annum, as such fee be revised accordingly, keeping in view inflation and the totality of circumstances. 32. In my considered view, it would be only just and equitable that the State itself appoints an independent Committee in terms of the NCTE Act/Regulations by nominating its members. This be done within a period of two weeks from today. Such Committee, after hearing all concerned, shall determine the fee structure for the course in question, within a period of two months thereafter. Inspection fee: 33. It is not in dispute that only for the purpose of conducting the examination, private unaided colleges established within the State of H.P. are affiliated to the respondent-University. Chapter XXXVIII of the first Ordinances of the University relates to affiliation and recognition of college(s) and institution(s). Ordinance 38.5 stipulates that in addition to Statute 16 of the First Statute of the University, every college or institution for which affiliation is sought must specify that there is a genuine need for a college or institution or such facilities in the locality and that the affiliation of the college or institution will not be injurious to the interests of the education.The Principal/Head of every affiliated college/ institution shall submit to the Registrar, annual report showing the changes, if any, in the teaching staff and qualifications of new members, number and distribution of students in a class or section, income and expenditure or the students fund for the previous financial year, results of University examinations, changes in the scale of fees and other infrastructure built up by the Institution. Any change in the management is also to be reflected in the said report.The Vice Chancellor of the University has a right to cause inspection to be made by such person or persons, as he may decide pertaining to infrastructure, administration and Finance. Ordinance 38.8 lays down the purpose of inspection, which is to ascertain whether the college fulfills all the conditions for affiliation laid down in the Statutes, Ordinances and the Regulations. As per Ordinance 38.9 the inspection report is to be considered by the Executive Council. Ordinance 38.11 provides that no college or institution shall admit students, till the conditions laid down by the Executive Council for the grant of affiliation have been duly fulfilled. Significantly, as per Ordinance 38.12 if the college or institution fails to start classes during the academic year for which affiliation has been granted, the affiliation shall stand cancelled. Ordinance 38.13 to ordinance 38.16 of the First Ordinances of the University deals with Extension of Affiliation. In terms of Clause 38.13 the inspection fee prescribed is `50,000/-. 34. It is seen that with respect to petitioners’ institutions, the University is granting affiliation on annual basis. Why so? has not been explained sufficiently. It is not the case of the University that any one of the educational institutions before the Court, have failed to adhere to or comply with any of the conditions so stipulated or laid down under law or the terms of affiliation(s).Statute 16(3) talks of inspection once every year for the first three years, following the grant of affiliation and thereafter at least once every two years. It is not the case of the University that the students have made complaints against any one of the educational institutions with regard to lack of infrastructure. The Government has also not made such a grievance. In fact none of the authorities under the NCTE Act have made such a grievance. Then why is it that the University is granting affiliation only on annual basis. It is not the requirement of law that the affiliation has to be only on annual basis. All that the University Ordinances requires from the educational institutions is submission of annual reports. Then why is it that the University is granting affiliation only on annual basis. It is not the requirement of law that the affiliation has to be only on annual basis. All that the University Ordinances requires from the educational institutions is submission of annual reports. University has not made out a grievance that in the report(s) so filed by the Institutions and considered by the Executive Council, there is change in the management, teaching staff or infrastructure necessitating inspection or continuation of affiliation on annual basis. 35. In this backdrop, the action of the respondent-University in granting affiliation on annual basis after first three years following the grant of affiliation and that too by charging the enhanced fee of `1,50,000/- is untenable in law. No doubt, University has power to charge fee for affiliation but then it has to be within the frame work of law. Significantly, these private educational institutions (B.Ed.) are required to deposit a sum of `1,50,000/- as endowment fund in cash. Hence, this practice of continuous inspection, as a matter of course, unless there is a genuine need and requirement based on objective material, de hors the Ordinances, Statute and University Act, cannot be allowed. 36. Hence the practice of University in charging affiliation fee on annual basis and also increasing the same cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Consequently, notifications dated 5.10.2009 and 27.11.2010 dealing with the issue of annual inspection and affiliation fee with respect to B.Ed. colleges are quashed. 37. Mr. Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 1862 of 2011, has urged that no fee is being charged by the University set up in the neighbouring State. There is no need to go into this question in view of my aforesaid findings. 38. Significantly, as a result of the change in the State Policy, several private Universities have been established. It is not the requirement of NCTE Act that educational institutions in question, should seek affiliation only from the Universities established, managed and controlled by the State Government. Respondent-University may no longer claim monopoly in the field. It has to change its dictatorial attitude and act in a manner so as to safeguard the interest of all concerned. 39. With regard to levy, Mr. Negi, learned counsel for the University has clarified that the petitioners-Institutions are no longer required to pay the same. Respondent-University may no longer claim monopoly in the field. It has to change its dictatorial attitude and act in a manner so as to safeguard the interest of all concerned. 39. With regard to levy, Mr. Negi, learned counsel for the University has clarified that the petitioners-Institutions are no longer required to pay the same. Thus this question is not adjudicated upon and left upon. Such payments are now to be paid by the students and not the Institutions. 40. As such, the petitions are allowed to the effect that (i) Notification dated 7.8.2010 and letter dated 6.5.2010 are quashed, (ii) Notifications dated 5.10.2009 and 27.11.2010 issued by the University so far they relate to annual inspection and affiliation fee with respect to B.Ed. colleges are also quashed, and (iii) the respondent-State is directed to re-constitute Committee(s) within a period of two weeks from today, to determine the fee structure with respect to the B.Ed. Courses in the private unaided institutions (B.Ed.), in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court of India and keeping in view the provisions of the NCTE Act, University Act/ Ordinances/Statute as the academic session has already commenced. The said Committee shall take a decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of its constitution. Till then an interim arrangement is required to be made as the students already stand admitted and the course is likely to be completed by January/March, 2013. Noticeably the State Government itself had fixed the fee structure for the non-subsidized seats with respect to session 2006-07. Consequently, it shall be open for the Educational Institutions to charge from the students fee fixed for the non-subsidized category in terms of the said fee structure. Eventually if the Committee comes to the conclusion that fee to be charged is different than the one fixed by the Government for the session 200607, it shall be open for the Institutions to recover the excess amount, if any, from the students, but, however, in case the amount so fixed is on the lower side then, the same shall be refunded to the students by the Educational Institutions alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, within a period of four weeks from the date of determination of the fee structure by the Committee. Accounts with regard to same shall be submitted by each of the educational Institution to the Chairperson of the Committee. 41. Accounts with regard to same shall be submitted by each of the educational Institution to the Chairperson of the Committee. 41. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.