JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by the Private School Fee Determination Committee 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 schools, unaided private schools have filed these Writ Petitions. 2. Petitioner schools are unaided Private Matriculation schools, run by Sambaviga Educational Trust. In pursuance to the direction issued by the First Bench in P.B. Prince Gajendra Babu v. Federation of Association of Private Schools in Tamil Nadu [ 2010 (5) CTC 721 ], the Petitioner schools submitted their response to the questionnaire along with the fee proposed by them and also the supporting documents. The Committee headed by Justice K. Raviraja Pandian passed the impugned order dated 27.5.2011 fixing the fee structure for three academic years 2010-11; 2011-12 and 2012013. Petitioner schools have filed these Writ Petitions contending that the actual expenditure as per the auditor's statement has not been taken into account and that the actual salary paid to the teachers together with statutory payments and other financial commitments have also not been taken into consideration and that the fee fixed by the Committee is very low, leaving huge deficit and making it difficult to run the school, 3. Mr. Kalyanasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner schools submitted that the Committee did not take into account the total expenditure incurred by the Petitioner schools and that the proposed fee structure fixed by the Committee is not in commensurate with the actual expenditure incurred by the Petitioner schools. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the Committee having noticed that the expenses in running the schools is more than the income derived by way of fees, ought not to have rejected the proposed fee structure given by the Petitioner schools during personal hearing on 27.12.2010. It was submitted that the Committee instead of verifying whether there was any profiteering has proceeded to reduce the expenditure and then artificially fixed the fee structure to suit the notional expenditure arrived after reduction and that the method adopted by the Committee is in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner schools submitted that in W.P.No.6167 of 2013, the Petitioner school had incurred total expenditure of Rs.1,61,65,440/- during the academic year 2012-13. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner schools submitted that in W.P.No.6167 of 2013, the Petitioner school had incurred total expenditure of Rs.1,61,65,440/- during the academic year 2012-13. But the Committee has allowed only Rs.84,63,240/-, leaving huge deficit. Like wise, in W.P.No.6168 of 2013, during the academic year 2012-13, the Petitioner school had incurred total expenditure of Rs.48,93,125/-. But the Committee has allowed only Rs.31,87,794/-, leaving huge deficit. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner schools 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 schools 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. 4. Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi, 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 schools 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 the academic years 2010-11; 2011-12 and 2012-13 does not arise. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner schools submitted that earlier, while fixing the fee structure, the Committee did not take into account the actual expenditure incurred by the Petitioner schools and thereby leaving huge deficit and in such view of the matter, suitable directions be issued to the Committee. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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 schools 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. 8. Having regard to the submissions, it is for the Petitioner schools 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 schools and determining the fee structure for the Petitioner schools, the Committee shall keep in view the expenditure said to have been incurred by the Petitioner schools for the academic year 2012-13 and then determine the fee structure for the forthcoming academic years. The Committee shall afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner schools to produce materials to substantiate the filled up questionnaire format. 9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition are disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.