JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to respondents to implement the order dated 5.7.2011 of the State Fee Committee and quash show cause notices dated 3.1.2012 and 21.2.2012. It is pertinent to mention that in the meeting of the State Fee Committee dated 5.7.2011, Rs.66,000/- was decided as fee which could be charged by the petitioner. However, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 7456 of 2012 to challenge the show cause notice dated 3.1.2012 and order dated 21.2.2012 which are the subject matter of this writ petition and also sought direction to the Haryana State Fee Committee to fix the fee chargeable by the petitioner, in accordance with law. 2. Notice of motion was issued in that case on 24.4.2012 and the following order was passed:-- Notice of motion. Notice re.: interim directions. Ms. Kirti Singh, D.A.G., Haryana who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 while Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 4 - A.I.C.T.E. They waive service on the respondents. Both the learned counsel pray for time to file reply. Let them do so before the adjourned date with a copy in advance to the opposite counsel. Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners has furnished one set of the paper book each to both the learned counsel in Court. He undertakes to furnish three more sets of the paper book to Ms. Kirti Singh and one set to Mr. Sharma during the course of the day. In the absence of a final order passed by the Committee fixing fee for engineering courses, Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the college is charging fee of Rs.66,000/- per annum for B. Tech. courses in terms of its application before the Fee Fixation Committee. He undertakes that in case, the fee ultimately fixed is lower than fee they are charging from the students provisionally, the difference of the amount would be refunded to the students. The 3rd respondent is requested to complete its exercise as soon as possible so that the rights of both the college and students are determined without delay. He undertakes that in case, the fee ultimately fixed is lower than fee they are charging from the students provisionally, the difference of the amount would be refunded to the students. The 3rd respondent is requested to complete its exercise as soon as possible so that the rights of both the college and students are determined without delay. In the meanwhile, the operation of Annexures P-11 and P-13 shall remain suspended pending final decision of the Fee Fixation Committee or till further orders of this Court. List again on 13.08.2012. A copy of this order be given to Ms. Kirti Singh, learned D.A.G., Haryana attested by the Bench Secretary. 3. Ultimately, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 15.1.2013 with the following directions: - (1) Haryana State Fee Committee-respondent No. 3 is directed to take a final decision on the fee proposal submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure P-6 dated 28.5.2011 without any further delay and in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. A long time of six months is being granted to respondent No. 3, on the request of the learned counsel for the State for the reason that the respondent-State is yet to appoint the Chairman of the Haryana State Fee Committee-respondent No. 3, in accordance with law. (2) Till the final decision is taken by the Haryana State Fee Committee-respondent No. 3, stay operation of Annexure P-11 and P-13 which was ordered by this Court vide order dated 24.4.2012, shall continue. (3) The petitioners shall remain bound by the undertaking recorded in the aforesaid order dated 24.4.2012 by this Court. It goes without saying that if the petitioners feel aggrieved against the order passed by the Haryana State Fee Committee-respondent No. 3, deciding the fee proposal submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure P-6, petitioners shall be at liberty to challenge the same, in accordance with law. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not bound by the undertaking given by his counsel in the earlier case and even otherwise no action is being taken by the State to review the order dated 5.7.2011. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not bound by the undertaking given by his counsel in the earlier case and even otherwise no action is being taken by the State to review the order dated 5.7.2011. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the undertaking given before the Court in C.W.P. No. 7456 of 2012 merely by saying that the undertaking given by the counsel is not binding on it. Moreover, in C.W.P. No. 20545 of 2009 titled as "Anti-Corruption and Crime Investigation Cell v. State of Punjab and others" decided on 9.4.2013, three committees have been set up for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to sort out the issue as to whether hike in the fee of the schools is proper or not. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Government in that regard but in so far as the present writ petition is concerned, I do not find any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.