JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent Committee to consider and fix the fee structure for the Petitioner school for Classes L.K.G. to X Standard for the year 2012-13 in the lines of guidelines issued by this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch dated 03.05.2012. 2. Petitioner school is a Matriculation school, run by Tholath Educational Trust. By the Proceedings of the Director, Matriculation Schools dated 02.04.2012, recognition was granted to the Petitioner school from L.K.G. to Standard VIII for the period from 01.6.2011 to 31.05.2013. As per the Proceedings of the Director, Matriculation Schools dated 29.12.2012, Petitioner school has got recognition for Standards IX and X. 3. For want of recognition and other details, the Petitioner school could not send filled up questionnaire to the Committee. Case of Petitioner school is that without getting details, the Committee headed by Justice K.Govindarajan issued order dated 07.05.2010 fixing the fee structure for the Petitioner school and the fee structure fixed by the order dated 07.05.2010 was inadequate. According to Petitioner school, since the issue of recognition was pending before the Director of Matriculation Schools, the Petitioner school did not prefer any objection for the fee structure, so fixed by the order dated 07.05.2010. 4. Further case of Petitioner school is that after obtaining recognition for Classes L.K.G. to Standard X, the Petitioner school filed Review Petition before the Committee to determine and fix reasonable fee from L.K.G to Standard X based on the accounts and documents for the academic year 2012-13. Inspite of the Review Petition, the Committee has not considered the request of the Petitioner school, which necessitated them to give representation dated 23.2.2013 requesting the Committee to fix the fee for the academic year 2012-13 as per the guidelines issued by this Court. Since, the Committee had failed to consider the representation of the Petitioner school dated 23.2.2013, Petitioner school has filed the present Writ Petition seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the Committee to consider the representation of the Petitioner school and fix the fee structure for Classes L.K.G. to X for the academic years 2012-13 as per the guidelines issued in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch dated 03.5.2012. 5. Mr. Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner submitted that by the Proceedings dated 07.5.2010, Justice K. Govindarajan Committee fixed the fee for the Petitioner school. batch dated 03.5.2012. 5. Mr. Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner submitted that by the Proceedings dated 07.5.2010, Justice K. Govindarajan Committee fixed the fee for the Petitioner school. Since the recognition of Petitioner school was pending before the Directorate of Matriculation Schools, it had not filed any objection for the fee fixed by the Committee. Since the issue of recognition was pending before the Director of Matriculation Schools, the Petitioner school complied with the fee structure fixed by Justice K. Govindarajan Committee though the same was highly inadequate. Since the authorities took almost three years to consider the request for recognition, the Petitioner school could not approach the subsequent Committee headed by Justice K. Raviraja Pandian for fixing the fee structure. According to Petitioner, now by its order dated 02.04.2012, Director of Matriculation School has granted recognition for the Classes L.K.G. to VIII and like wise, by order dated 29.12.2012 the Authorities granted recognition for Standards IX and X for a period up to 31.5.2013. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the fee fixed by the Committee headed by Justice K. Raviraja Pandian was challenged by many schools by way of Writ Petitions. Drawing our attention to the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch dated 03.5.2012, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner 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 order dated 03.05.2012 for determining the fee structure for the academic year 2012-13. 6. Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted the Petitioner school had got recognition only in 2012 and therefore, fixing fee for the Petitioner school for the year 2012-13 does not arise in this case. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit 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. Learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that since the academic year 2012-13 is nearing end, question of fixing the fee structure for academic year 2012-13 does not arise. 7. Learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that since the academic year 2012-13 is nearing end, question of fixing the fee structure for academic year 2012-13 does not arise. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner submitted that since the recognition was granted only in 2012, the Committee may be asked to notionally fix the fee for the academic year 2012-13 and then fix the fee structure for the forthcoming academic years. 8. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that questionnaire format was 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 laid down by this Court in the order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch and W.P.No.32053 of 2012 dated 22.01.2013 and that it is for the Petitioner school to submit the filled up questionnaire format. 9. 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 its 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 and W.P.No.32053 of 2012 dated 22.01.2013. 10. Having regard to the submissions, it is for the Petitioner school to submit the filled up questionnaire for the forthcoming academic years 2013-14 etc. 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 expenditure said to have been incurred by the Petitioner school for the academic year 2012-13 and then determine the fee structure for the forth coming academic years. 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.