Judgment R. Banumathi, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 3rd Respondent – Private School Fee Determination Committee dated 03.06.2011 and direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner school to collect the fees as per the fees statement (dated 21.03.2011) submitted by the Petitioner to the Committee. 2. Petitioner school – Vikaasa Higher Secondary School is affiliated to Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE). As per the direction issued by the First Bench in 2010 (5) CTC 721 (P.B. Prince Gajendra Babu v. Federation of Association of Private Schools), the Petitioner school submitted its response to the questionnaire along with the 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 observing that since the details regarding ICSE classes are not furnished by the school, the school has to collect the fee as per the order of the High Court dated 05.10.2010 in W.P.No.2035 of 2010. Challenging the impugned order of the Committee dated 03.6.2011 that it is not in conformity with Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009), the Petitioner school has filed this Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Godson Swaminath, learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Committee is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and also passed without adherence to the principles contemplated under Act 22 of 2009 and the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. It was submitted that during the course of hearing before the Committee, Petitioner school had submitted all the materials including the proposed fee structure of the school dated 21.3.2011. But the Committee has failed to consider the same and passed the order holding that Petitioner school has not furnished the details for determining the fee structure and the order of the Committee is bereft of reasons. Learned counsel would submit that since the fee fixed under the impugned order is very low, the Petitioner school is suffering from huge revenue loss which will ultimately end up in crippling the functioning of the school. According to Petitioner school, based on the fee proposed by the school dated 21.3.2011 against the expenditure of Rs.633 lakhs, the collection would come up to Rs.686 lakhs only, which is a surplus of only 7.64%. 4. According to Petitioner school, based on the fee proposed by the school dated 21.3.2011 against the expenditure of Rs.633 lakhs, the collection would come up to Rs.686 lakhs only, which is a surplus of only 7.64%. 4. Drawing our attention to the order passed in W.P.Nos.8489 of 2011 etc. batch (03.05.2012) and M.P.No.3 of 2012 in W.P.No.19744 of 2011 (13.02.2013), learned counsel for Writ Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is similarly placed school as that of the schools in the above batch of Writ Petitions and prayed for remitting the matter back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the guidelines laid down in the common order dated 03.05.2012. 5. We have heard Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) for Respondents. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that for the forthcoming academic years 2013-14; 2014-15 and 2015-16, questionnaire formats were already hosted in the website and it is for the Petitioner school to fill up the questionnaire and submit to the Committee and in the normal course, the Committee will determine the fee by taking into consideration the relevant aspects and therefore, it is not necessary to remit the matter to the Committee. 6. Insofar as CBSE/ICSE schools, batch of Writ Petitions [W.P.No.15373 of 2011 etc.] were filed seeking Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the Committee dated 03.06.2011, challenging the applicability of Act 22 of 2009 to CBSE/ICSE schools. In W.P.No.15373 of 2011 etc. batch, by common order dated 21.09.2012 (one of us was a member – Justice R. Banumathi), all the Writ Petitions were dismissed. This Court elaborately gone into the question of applicability of Act 22 of 2009 to CBSE/ICSE schools and held that CBSE/ICSE are private schools within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Act 22 of 2009 and under Section 7 of the Act, the Committee has the power to determine the fee and verify whether the fee collected by CBSE/ICSE schools is in commensurate with the facilities provided. In the batch since the applicability of Act 22 of 2009 to CBSE/ICSE schools were mainly challenged, this Court did not go into the question of factual aspects. 7. On behalf of Petitioner school, it was submitted that earlier while fixing the fee structure, the Committee did not take into account the proposed fee structure of the Petitioner school dated 21.03.2011 submitted to the Committee. 7. On behalf of Petitioner school, it was submitted that earlier while fixing the fee structure, the Committee did not take into account the proposed fee structure of the Petitioner school dated 21.03.2011 submitted to the Committee. On the other hand, the Committee had simply observed that the details regarding ICSE classes are not furnished by the school which are necessary for determination of fee structure and the school was directed to furnish the details and only after furnishing such necessary details, fee could be fixed and till such time, the school has to collect the fee as per the order of the High Court, Madras dated 05.10.2010 in W.P.No.2035 of 2010. 8. Earlier, in a batch of Writ Petitions [W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch – 2012 Writ Law Reporter 489], 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. Written submission was filed by the Government stating that expenses incurred in respect of (i) salary to teaching and non-teaching staff; (ii) employees provident fund; (iii) contribution to employees State Insurance Corporation; (iv) gratuity; and such other head shall be considered based on the bills produced. Elaborately referring to the written submissions filed by the learned Advocate General, in the order dated 03.5.2012, in Paragraphs 88 to 117, we have formulated certain guidelines for determination of fee structure in respect of unaided non-minority educational institutions. 9. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that now the questionnaire format has been hosted in the website for determining the fee structure from the forthcoming academic years 2013-14 and that the said questionnaire format is based on the factors indicated in Section 6 of Act 22 of 2009 and also the guidelines issued by this Court in the order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch and that it is for the Petitioner school to submit the filled up questionnaire format. batch and that it is for the Petitioner school to submit the filled up questionnaire format. Since the questionnaire format is stated to be based on the factors indicated in Section 6 of Act 22 of 2009 and also the guidelines laid down by this Court, no further direction need be issued, except observing that the Committee shall afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner school to substantiate their claim of actual expenditure and other factors as indicated in Section 6 of Act 22 of 2009 and also the guidelines laid down by this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch dated 03.05.2012; W.P.No.32053 of 2012 dated 22.01.2013 and M.P.3 of 2012 in W.P.No.19744 of 2011 dated 13.02.2013. 10. Having regard to the submissions, it is for the Petitioner school to submit the filled up questionnaire. While considering the filled up questionnaire format submitted by the Petitioner school and determining the fee structure for the Petitioner school, the Committee shall keep in view the submissions of the Petitioner school regarding the expenditure said to have been incurred by them. The Committee shall afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner school to produce materials to substantiate the filled up questionnaire format. 11. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.