JUDGMENT K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. The challenge in this writ petition is against the order passed by the first respondent Committee dated 10.4.2012. Under the impugned order, the first respondent rejected the two circulars issued by the petitioner school dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 in respect of collection of fees relating to the extra curricular activities as bad and unsustainable. 2. The following are the facts, which led the petitioner School to file the present writ petition. The petitioner School was started in the year 1991 and is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The petitioner School contended that it would not come within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of fee) Act 2009 and the first respondent has not been given any power to fix the fees to the CBSE affiliated schools like the petitioner. When the first respondent fee Committee proceeded to fix the fees for the petitioner school, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No. 16022 of 2011 challenging the order of the first respondent Fee Committee in determining the fees to be collected by the petitioner school. When the said writ petition was pending, the petitioner school issued two circulars dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 intimating the fee structure for optional extra co-curricular and sports club activities . No student is compelled to pay the fees for these optional extra curricular and sports activities and only if a student is interested in such activities, the payment towards the same is collected. No extra points or grades are given to those students who enroll themselves in optional extra co-curricular and sports club activities. The optional activities are to develop interest and are not assessed. Out of 787 students studying in Classes 1 to 9, 708 have enrolled themselves in optional extra co-curricular activities and 110 have enrolled themselves for the optional Sports Club activities. 79 children did not enroll themselves in any of the above said two activities. The petitioner school is conducting the optional extra co-curricular activities and sports club activities at timings other than the regular school timings. The children who participated in those activities either come earlier or leave later. 79 children did not enroll themselves in any of the above said two activities. The petitioner school is conducting the optional extra co-curricular activities and sports club activities at timings other than the regular school timings. The children who participated in those activities either come earlier or leave later. Without understanding these facts, few parents joined together and formed the third respondent Association on 18.11.2010 sent a false complaint to the first respondent as if the petitioner school was collecting fees in excess of the fees fixed by the Committee. Based on the complaint filed by the third respondent, the first respondent issued notice to the petitioner school on 2.11.2011 and the petitioner attended the hearing. In the meantime, the third respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 19223 of 2011 before this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation made by them against the petitioner school. 3. By an order dated 10.2.2012 this Court directed the first respondent to enquire into the complaint, without prejudice to the objection of the petitioner herein to the jurisdiction of the Committee, as to whether the circulars dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 are violative of the earlier order passed on 3.6.2011 . It was also specifically directed that for this purpose the Committee shall get an opinion from the CBSE about the inclusion and exclusion of various co-curricular activities as part of the curriculum. The first respondent adjourned the hearing of the matter on several occasions and when the matter was posted to 9.3.2012, the third respondent did not attend the enquiry. The petitioner was informed by the third respondent by letter dated 16.3.2012 to appear before the Committee for enquiry on 19.3.2012. As there was no notice or intimation from the first respondent Committee with regard to the fresh complaint and the hearing, the petitioner school did not attend the hearing. Thereafter, the Special Officer of the first respondent Committee informed the petitioner about the next date of hearing as 27.3.2012. A detailed reply was sent by the petitioner school on 27.3.2012 refuting each and every allegation made by the third respondent association. Again by letter dated 5.4.2012, the petitioner explained the first respondent as to how the President and Secretary of the third respondent Association and 21 other parents had not paid the fees for the academic year 2010-2011. A detailed reply was sent by the petitioner school on 27.3.2012 refuting each and every allegation made by the third respondent association. Again by letter dated 5.4.2012, the petitioner explained the first respondent as to how the President and Secretary of the third respondent Association and 21 other parents had not paid the fees for the academic year 2010-2011. However, despite all these problems, all the students were taught all the subjects provided in the syllabus and had been issued grades as per the guidelines of the CBSE. The petitioner also filed necessary records to prove that the circulars dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 did not in any manner intend to collect excess fee and there was absolutely no discrimination practised by the School. However, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 10.4.2012 holding that the circulars dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 are bad in law. Hence, the present writ petition is filed before this Court challenging the order dated 10.4.2012 of the first respondent. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated as follows:- The writ petition filed by the petitioner school in W.P.No. 16022 of 2011 challenging the fee structure fixed by the first respondent in its earlier order dated 3.6.2011 came to be rejected by this court by an order dated 21.9.2012 by upholding the validity of the Act 22 of 2009 and the power of the Private Schools Fee Determination Committee to determine the fee for CBSE and ICSE schools. The Committee is empowered to fix/determine the fee to be collected by the private schools and also empowered to approve the fee structure under Section 7(2)(iii). It is incorrect to state that the Committee while fixing the fees allowed the schools to collect fees for some extra amenities/facilities. In case, the private schools failed to provide any information with regard to extra curricular activities or co-curricular activities or extra facilities/amenities provided in their school, they have to collect the fees fixed by the Committee only and not excess than that. The CBSE By-laws itself contemplate that the fee should be in commensurate with the facilities provided in the school. 5. The alleged Co-curricular activities and other things in the petitioner school is for the purpose of indirectly collecting exorbitant fees from the students. The Fee Committee determined the fee structure of the petitioner School on 3.6.2011. The CBSE By-laws itself contemplate that the fee should be in commensurate with the facilities provided in the school. 5. The alleged Co-curricular activities and other things in the petitioner school is for the purpose of indirectly collecting exorbitant fees from the students. The Fee Committee determined the fee structure of the petitioner School on 3.6.2011. Immediately after receipt of the fee structure, the School issued those two circulars. Therefore, the first respondent Committee rightly set aside those two circulars. While disposing of the writ petitions filed by the third respondent herein in W.P.No. 19223 of 2011, this Court directed the first respondent to obtain opinion from the CBSE on the circulars issued by the petitioner school. The petitioner school failed to furnish the remarks or the opinion obtained from the CBSE. The committee had no other way except to decide the case based on the available records. 6. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit and stated as follows:- The writ petitioner did not submit or show any expenditure incurred by them for providing such extra co-curricular activities either before the first Committee or before the second Committee. CBSE has mandated the schools for giving comprehensive school health program and creating health club in the school. If the petitioner school wants to provide more co- curricular activities to the students and incurred any expenses it can very well go before the first respondent and get the fee fixed for the same. Before 18.7.2011, the writ petitioner school was imparting all the co-curricular activities (co-scholastic activities) to all the students without any discrimination. But after the fee fixation Committee passed an order fixing the fee, the co-curricular activities have become optional on payment of extra fee. The documents produced by the petitioner do not contain what is technology based education given all of a sudden from 18.7.2011. The petitioner school does not impart any technology based education to the students. It is an admitted fact that almost all the students barring 79 have joined the optional extra co-curricular activities by paying the extra amount as demanded by the petitioner. The petitioner school discriminated the students by imparting certain co-curricular activities. They wanted to extract money from the students under the guise of extra curricular activities. The School now abandoned the activities like Yoga, Aeorbics, scouts etc., to all the students. The petitioner school discriminated the students by imparting certain co-curricular activities. They wanted to extract money from the students under the guise of extra curricular activities. The School now abandoned the activities like Yoga, Aeorbics, scouts etc., to all the students. The first respondent Committee has not acted beyond the direction given in W.P.No. 19223 of 2011. On the other hand, the Committee had enquired into the issuance of circulars dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 to find out as to whether they are in violation of the earlier order of the committee. As the Committee had formed an opinion that the fee collected through the said circulars are not in commensurate with the facilities provided like extra co-curricular activities, the Committee set aside those two circulars. 7. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:- In W.P.No. 19223 of 2011, this Court was pleased to direct the first respondent to get an opinion from the CBSE Board about the inclusion and exclusion of various curricular activities on the part of the curriculum. Accordingly, a personal visit was made by the fourth respondent to the petitioner school and consequently, a report was sent to the first respondent. It is stated in the said report that the CBSE prescribed activities are organised by the school for all the students and are assessed under the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation and such assessment is shown in the progress cards of all the students. It is verified that the school has reasonable facilities in the areas mentioned in the circulars under reference such as Yoga, Aerobic, Music, Indoor Games etc. CBSE Board has introduced a system of Continuous Curriculum Evaluation for the purpose of monitoring comprehensive growth of the child and it is mandatory on the part of the school to provide two activities of non-academic subjects. Besides, the CBSE Board has also provided guidelines for such activities. All these extra curricular activities are recommended by the CBSE Board for the purpose of improving moral, physical and academic growth of the children in all fields. The petitioner school is following the guidelines of the CBSE Board and in fact during the visit of this respondent, the School has also produced the progress cards of all students in C.C.E and further there are reasonable facilities available with the school about the co-curricular activities mentioned in the circular. The petitioner school is following the guidelines of the CBSE Board and in fact during the visit of this respondent, the School has also produced the progress cards of all students in C.C.E and further there are reasonable facilities available with the school about the co-curricular activities mentioned in the circular. It has also been informed by the School that these are additional activities organised for imparting higher level skills to students and they are optional and whoever is interested to learn these skills are asked to join the classes and these activities are carried out without affecting the school hours. Only two extra curricular activities of the concerned school choice are compulsory and other extra curricular activities suggested by the CBSE Board CCE are only suggestive in nature to enable the school to have all those activities as optional. 8. The respondents 5 to 14 are other parents supporting the petitioner school. They have filed a separate counter affidavit. The sum and substance of the counter filed by these respondents are in support of the stand taken by the petitioner school. It is specifically stated by these respondents that such extra co-curricular and sports club activities are only optional and no student is compelled to enroll in the same. These activities do not form part of the regular syllabus. The cost for providing 5 extra co-curricular activities at petitioner school is only Rs.2,250/-per year, which is more reasonable and commensurate with the facilities provided by the petitioner school. Likewise the cost of Rs.5,000/- per year for any of the three Sports Club Activities is also reasonable and in commensurate with the facilities provided by the petitioner school. 9. A rejoinder is filed by the petitioner to all the counter affidavits filed by the contesting respondents, in which it is stated that the report cards issued by the school will clearly prove that the optional activities provided by them are extra activities and do not form part of the syllabus. Those two circulars were issued for administrative convenience as the extra activities were commenced even for classes I to III. The formation of health clubs, arts clubs, sports club etc., are the initiative of the petitioner school and the same do not form part of the CBSE curriculum. The report cards of various classes would prove that only two of the co-curricular activities are assessed. The formation of health clubs, arts clubs, sports club etc., are the initiative of the petitioner school and the same do not form part of the CBSE curriculum. The report cards of various classes would prove that only two of the co-curricular activities are assessed. No opportunity was given to the school to provide the details with regard to the expenses it had incurred for imparting such extra curricular activities. The fee fixed by the Committee is for providing education and activities as per the syllabus prescribed. The petitioner School had been providing various activities, not part of the syllabus, in the interest of the students and at the request of the parents. There is absolutely no compulsion. The co-curricular activities as required under the syllabus remain to be co-curricular activities and the report cards are ample proof of the same. Technology based education are provided to students though Multi-media lab, Computer lab, English lab and Maths lab. 10. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows:- On 7.5.2010, the Fee Determination Committee passed a provisional order fixing the fees for the petitioner school. Based on the objections, an order dated 3.6.2011 came to be passed revising the fee by the Committee. In the said order, the Committee observed that the said fee fixed is an all inclusive annual fee of various fee like admission fee, library fee, maintenance and amenities fee and other recurring expenditure and development charges excluding the fee for imparting education through technology like Smart class etc., for books, note books, uniforms and transportation facilities, if any. CBSE guidelines permit the schools to fix the fees in commensurate with the activities. The disputed circulars dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 were issued by the petitioner school informing the parents about the various optional extra co-curricular activities to be offered by the school. In those circulars, it is made clear that those activities are only optional apart from specifically stating that the seats would be allotted on firstcum-first serve basis. It is also stated therein that a consent form should be filled in by individual student or parent for taking part in the activities. In those circulars, it is made clear that those activities are only optional apart from specifically stating that the seats would be allotted on firstcum-first serve basis. It is also stated therein that a consent form should be filled in by individual student or parent for taking part in the activities. Morning activities like Yoga, Music, dance, Aerobic and scouts take place between 8 and 8.50 a.m., while the evening activities viz., Sports activities take place between 3.30 and 4.30 p.m. Both morning and evening activities are conducted out side the school hours and both are optional. The regular school timings is 9 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. The "fee" as defined under Section 2(e) of the said Act means for admission or course of study only and the extra curricular activities will not fall under the same. Therefore, the Committee itself has no jurisdiction to decide this issue of collecting fee for extra curricular activities. There is no discrimination among the students as the very activities are taking place outside the school hours that too being optional. There is no complaint against the school in respect of the activities that are taking place during school hours. Two of the co-scholastic activities are given by school along with regular curriculum for which no extra fee is collected. Further, two health and physical education activities are given by the School for which also no extra fee is collected. The school fee fixation Committee is a statutory body to fix the fee in accordance with law and the disputed area in the present writ petition is not falling within the purview of the Act and consequently, within the power of the Committee. 11. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Aravind Pandian, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted as follows:- The definition of fee under Section 2(e) of the said Act includes fee collected for extra curricular activities because the words "any amount" , "indirectly" and "course of study" occurring in Section 2(e) undoubtedly bring the fee collected for extra curricular activities also within the scope and ambit of "fee" under Section 2(e). The purpose of School fee Committee is to see that no excess fee is collected from the students. Therefore, under the garb of extra curricular activities the school cannot collect excess fees. The purpose of School fee Committee is to see that no excess fee is collected from the students. Therefore, under the garb of extra curricular activities the school cannot collect excess fees. For any activity, fee is to be fixed by the Committee whether it is optional or compulsory. Only after the fee is fixed by the Committee it is for the School to make any activity as optional or compulsory. The fixation of the fee is important, because it is only to regulate any curriculum whether it is optional or compulsory. Section 3(3) read with Section 2(e) empower the Committee to fix the fees for extra curricular activities also. Section 6(1) (b) & (c) as well as Section 7 (3)(i) of the Act empower the Committee to fix the fees for the activities under dispute. In the earlier decision rendered by this Court with regard to CBSE Schools reported in Lakshmi School Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others ( 2012 (6) CTC 8 ) this Court at paragraph 57 has categorically observed about the applicability of the Act to the CBSE Schools. The School has not appeared before the Committee and furnished the data sought for regarding the co-curricular activities. The Committee had specifically found that the Management of the School did not appear for hearings and submit the expenditure statement. Therefore, the School having not utilised the opportunity to appear before the Committee cannot now come and complain before this Court regarding the jurisdiction of the Committee. This Court cannot go into the question of jurisdiction of the Committee when the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 19223 of 2011 wherein the Committee was directed to go into the question with regard to the sustainability of those two circulars. 12. Mr. M.Christopher, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted as follows:- In pursuant to the order made by this Court holding that the Act is applicable to CBSE schools also, the petitioner School is not entitled to complain against the fixation of fees. By issuing the two circulars dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 that too at the middle of the academic year by changing the school timings, the School is collecting several lakhs of rupees and thus make it as a business. 13. Mr. By issuing the two circulars dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 that too at the middle of the academic year by changing the school timings, the School is collecting several lakhs of rupees and thus make it as a business. 13. Mr. G.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the CBSE submitted as follows:- The fee collected by the petitioner school under the disputed activities would not fall within the definition of fee as contemplated under Section 2(e). In pursuant to the order made in W.P.No. 19223 of 2011, the fourth respondent made a personal visit to the petitioner school and filed a report by specifically stating that CBSE prescribed activities are organised for all the students and are assessed under the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation which are shown in the progress cards of all the students. The School has reasonable facilities in the areas mentioned in the circulars under reference and those additional activities were organised for imparting higher level skills to students as optional. Only two extra curricular activities of the concerned school are compulsory and other extra curricular activities suggested by the CBSE Board are only suggestive in nature. 14. Ms. Kavitha Dheenadayalan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 14 submitted as follows:- These respondents 5 to 14 are representing 266 parents and 500 students of the petitioner school. All the students, who have joined in the extra curricular activities have given their consent knowing fully well that it is only optional. They were not compelled by the petitioner school at any point of time. Those activities are taught only before or after school hours. The third respondent represents only 16 parents. The fee collected towards extra curricular activities do not represent either the admission fee or the fee towards the course of study. Therefore, the Committee has got no jurisdiction to pass orders to stop the extra curricular activities. 15. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side and perused the relevant materials placed before us. 16. The order under challenge in this writ petition is the one passed by the first respondent Committee wherein two circulars issued by the petitioner school dated 18.7.2011 and 20.7.2011 have been declared unsustainable and the petitioner school was advised not to collect any other fees under any label or head except that was fixed by the Committee by its re-fixation order dated 3.6.2011. 17. 17. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Committee was enquiring upon a complaint dated 20.6.2011 against the petitioner school. During the pendency of the said enquiry, an order came to be passed in W.P.No. 19223 of 2011 on 10.2.2012 by the learned single Judge of this court directing the Committee to enquire into the complaint given by the third respondent dated 20.6.2011 and find out as to whether the circulars dated 18.7.2011 and 10.7.2011 are violative of the earlier order passed by the Committee on 3.6.2011. While issuing such direction, the learned single Judge made it clear that the Committee shall enquire into the complaint without prejudice to the objection of the petitioner school to the jurisdiction of the Committee. Further the Committee was directed to get an opinion from the Central Board of Secondary Education about the inclusion and exclusion of various co-curricular activities as part of the curriculum. Thereupon, the Committee proceeded to enquire into the complaint given by the third respondent herein and consequently passed the impugned order. 18. The Committee observed that the School Management had not submitted certain data in order to know the expenditure incurred by the School for the facilities provided in Co-curricular activities. It was also observed that for Co-curricular activities, fee may be prescribed in such manner that it is commensurate with the facilities provided. The fee claimed under those two circulars was more than the fee prescribed by the Committee by its order dated 3.6.2011. The Committee also found that the management did not appear for four consecutive hearings and failed to submit the facilities provided for Co-curricular activities or the expenditure incurred in providing such facilities. The Committee further observed that the School by its impugned circulars try to collect extra fees more than what was once fixed by the Committee. 19. In so far as the amenability of the petitioner School under the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act 2009 is concerned, this Court by its judgment reported in Lakshmi School and others Vs. 19. In so far as the amenability of the petitioner School under the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act 2009 is concerned, this Court by its judgment reported in Lakshmi School and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others ( 2012 (6) CTC 8 ) has declared that the CBSE schools are private schools within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 and the provisions of Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 are applicable to CBSE Schools. It is further declared therein that under Section 7 of the said Act the Committee has the power to determine the fee and verify whether the fee collected by the CBSE schools is commensurate with the facilities provided and while so determining the fee the Committee shall keep in view the parameters in Sections 3(3) and 7(3) of the Act apart from the factors provided in Section 6 of the said Act. 20. Therefore, the issue with regard to the applicability of the said Act to the petitioner School has already been decided by this Court against the petitioner school and other CBSE schools (Vide 2012 (6) CTC 8 [Lakshmi school and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others]. Challenging the applicability of the Act to CBSE schools, some of the CBSE schools have preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the issue is pending with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this case, we are only concerned with the question whether Committee has got power to fix the fee in respect of optional extracurricular activities which are being conducted by the school beyond the school hours. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the disputed fee collected by the petitioner school through the said two circulars for the extra-curricular is within the meaning and definition of "fee" as defined under Section 2(e) of the said Act. 21. Needless to say that only when the disputed collection of fees towards the extra curricular activities comes within the meaning and definition of 'fee' as stipulated in Section 2(e), the Committee shall have the power to regulate those collection. 21. Needless to say that only when the disputed collection of fees towards the extra curricular activities comes within the meaning and definition of 'fee' as stipulated in Section 2(e), the Committee shall have the power to regulate those collection. Thus, the core issue to be decided in this matter is as to whether the definition of "fee" under Section 2(e) of the said Act would also attract or include the fees collected for extra curricular activities. 22. Before going into such question, let us first consider and find out as to whether the fees collected through those two circulars are in any way related to the curriculum of the students necessitating assessment for promotion to the higher class /standard. In other words, we have to find out as to whether the fee collected is in respect of any subjects or activities forming part of the curriculum ultimately to be assessed or valued for promotion of the student to the higher standard or those activities are outside the purview of curriculum and are pure and simple extra curricular activities without having any relative assessment value for promotion to the higher standards. 23. Keeping this in mind, we perused those two circulars. Circular dated 18.7.2011 referred to Yoga/Aeorbic, Music, Dance, Club Activity, Scouts as the activities for which the students were asked to fill up the consent form and submit the same to the class teacher. This circular was issued for the class VII to IX. Rs. 2,250 was fixed for 7th and 8th standards and Rs.3,000 was fixed for 9th standard as fees towards these activities. When we perused the next circular dated 20.7.2011, here again it referred to the same set of activities which included 6th standard also. Under the circular dated 20.7.2011, it is further made clear that those activities are optional extra co-curricular activities and seats will be allotted on first-cum-first serve basis. There also, the students were directed to fill up the consent form and submit the same to the class teacher. 24. A perusal of those two circulars makes two things clear. Firstly, those activities are optional and the students are directed to give their consent for taking part in such extra curricular activities. There also, the students were directed to fill up the consent form and submit the same to the class teacher. 24. A perusal of those two circulars makes two things clear. Firstly, those activities are optional and the students are directed to give their consent for taking part in such extra curricular activities. Secondly, the activities referred to therein viz., Yoga/Aeorbic, Music, Dance, Club Activity do not form part of the curriculum, based on which any assessment is made for promoting the students to the higher standards. Neither it is the case of the contesting respondents nor they claimed or proved so before this court to that effect. Therefore, those activities are only extra curricular activities undisputably. 25. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also made it clear that those extra curricular activities are being conducted outside the regular school timing between 8.oo a.m. and 8.50 a.m. and the sports activities are being conducted between 3.30 and 4.30 p.m. Thus, it is manifestly clear that these activities do not form part of the regular school activities in relation to the curriculum, ultimately being assessed for promotion. If that be the position, whether the fees collected towards those activities can be treated as fee falling within the definition and meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act is the moot question to be gone into next. For answering the same, it is useful to refer Section 2(e), which is extracted as follows:- "2. Definitions:-(e) "Fee" means any amount, by whatever name called, collected directly or indirectly by a school for admission of a pupil to any standard or course of study;" 26. A bare perusal of the definition of "fee" under Section 2(e) only indicates that the fee contemplated therein is towards admission of a pupil to any standard or course of study. No doubt, the definition of fee emphasizes that "any amount by whatever name called, collected directly or indirectly by a school". The learned Additional Advocate General stressed very much on this phrase to substantiate his contention that the fee collected by the School towards extra curricular activities would also fall within the meaning and definition of Section 2(e). We are unable to appreciate such contention for the following reasons. 27. Section 2(e) contemplates an eventuality viz., admission of the student to any standard or course of study. We are unable to appreciate such contention for the following reasons. 27. Section 2(e) contemplates an eventuality viz., admission of the student to any standard or course of study. Thus, it is a fee collected towards admission or towards the course of study. Neither the activities referred to in those two circulars nor any other extra curricular activities not forming part of curriculum would fall within the meaning of admission to any standard or course of study. In other words, those extra curricular activities are being carried out in the school outside the school hours. But in order to apply Section 2(e), the fee collected should represent the admission fee of a student to any standard or course of study and not in respect of any other extra curricular activities. To put it simply, not all the fees collected during the course of study would fall within the meaning of 'fee' unless such collection is made towards the course of study. 28. Apart from this when we perused the other provisions of the Act viz., Sections 3, 4 and 5, in all those sections, the fee is referred as fee for admission to any standard or course of study only. Therefore, the entire Act deals with only in respect of fee to be collected by the schools towards the admission of a student to any standard or course of study. Other than that, any fee collected towards optional extra curricular activities cannot be brought under the purview of definition of Section 2(e). 29. The phrase "any amount by whatever name called, collected directly or indirectly" used in Section 2(e) does not mean that any amount other than the one towards the admission or course of study. The intention of the legislation is very clear that the collection of fee may be in any form by whatever name called, collected directly, or indirectly; but such collection of fee is attributable to the admission of the student to any standard or towards the course of study. Neither the admission of the pupil nor the course of study contemplated under Section 2(e) would attract any other fees collected towards the extra curricular activities carried out by the School. Neither the admission of the pupil nor the course of study contemplated under Section 2(e) would attract any other fees collected towards the extra curricular activities carried out by the School. If that was the intention, the definition of fee should have been made in different manner by coining the words by saying as "any amount, by whatever name called collected, directly or indirectly by a school from the pupil". The very inclusion of the words "admission" and "the course of study" under the said definition shows the intention of the legislature very clear. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the fee contemplated and defined under Section 2(e) is only in respect of fee collected either directly or indirectly for admission of a pupil to any standard or for course of study and not otherwise. 30. In a competitive world with globalization, parents and students clamor for higher and better standards of education, demand better opportunities for exposure of the students to various curricular and extra-curricular activities like sports, games, dance, music, painting, art and other activities. A private educational institution is legitimately entitled to cater to these demands of parents. In Paragraph (115) of the judgment in 2012 Writ L.R. 489 [Lakshmi Matriculation School, Madurai, rep. by the Secretary Lakshmi Vidya Sangham v. State of Tamil Nadu and others], this Court also pointed out the increasing demand of the parents for quality education, extra-curricular activities to achieve all round development of children. 31. When extra-curricular activities are conducted by private unaided schools beyond school hours and when they are wholly unconnected with the course of study, the same cannot be interfered with by the State or by the School Fee Determination Committee on the assumption that those extra-curricular activities are connected with curriculum or academic activities. The State Government/Committee has power to interfere with the activities only when those activities are conducted during the course of study and made as part of the curriculum or integral component of students performance. State Government cannot interfere with those extra-curricular activities, merely because, they are conducted by the unaided educational institutions in the school premises. 32. One more aspect need to be considered in this case is that admittedly the disputed fee collected is only after the option exercised by the students. Once it becomes optional, it goes without saying, that there is no compulsion. 32. One more aspect need to be considered in this case is that admittedly the disputed fee collected is only after the option exercised by the students. Once it becomes optional, it goes without saying, that there is no compulsion. When there is no compulsion, then the fee collected is to be treated as voluntary and collection of such voluntary payment of fees more particularly in respect of extra curricular activities cannot be termed as a fee as defined under Section 2(e) so as to empower the committee to regulate the same. 33. From the academic year 2010-11, Central Board of Secondary Education introduced the system of Continuous Curriculum Evaluation (CCE) for overall comprehensive growth of the child. As per the system of CCE, the school had to provide two activities out of the list of suggested activities in non-academic subjects which are termed as "co-scholastic area". CBSE has provided guidelines on what should be given as "cocurricular activities" during school hours and how students should be assessed. 34. CBSE has enlisted the following co-scholastic areas for imparting skills and assessment:- 1. Life Skill 2. Work Education 3. Visual and Performing Arts 4. Attitudes and Values 5. Literary and Creative Skills 6. Scientific Skills 7. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) 8. Organization and Leadership Skills (Clubs) 9. Health and Physical Education 9.1 Sports/Indigenous Sports 9.2 NCC/NSS 9.3 Scouting and Guiding 9.4 Swimming 9.5 Gymnastics 9.6 Yoga 9.7 First Aid 9.8 Gardening/Shramdaan It is compulsory to provide any two activities out of the list of suggested areas. 35. It is brought to our notice that Petitioner school is providing two activities (without collecting any fee) under co-scholastic areas viz., (i) Literary and Creative Skills and (ii) Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Insofar as Health and Physical Education as co-curricular activities, Petitioner school is providing two activities (without collecting any fee) viz., (i) Sports/Indigenous Sports and (ii) First Aid. Petitioner school is providing two activities under co-scholastic areas and two activities under co-curricular activities without collecting extra fees towards the same. This fact is not disputed by the contesting Respondents. These two co-scholastic activities and co-curricular activities provided by the Petitioner school during the school hours as part of the curriculum in compliance with CBSE guidelines. Petitioner school is providing two activities under co-scholastic areas and two activities under co-curricular activities without collecting extra fees towards the same. This fact is not disputed by the contesting Respondents. These two co-scholastic activities and co-curricular activities provided by the Petitioner school during the school hours as part of the curriculum in compliance with CBSE guidelines. If the parents have got any grievance or complaint that the school is collecting fee/excess fee in respect of two compulsory co-scholastic areas/co-curricular activities, then they are entitled to go before the Committee and make complaint about the same. But that is not the case here. On the other hand, the complaint is only in respect of collection of fees towards extra-curricular activities. As we have already pointed out that the money collected towards those activities conducted beyond the school hours and outside the purview of curriculum cannot be termed as the fee collected under Section 2(e), and the first respondent Committee erred in interfering with the same. 36. The learned Additional Advocate General objected to the petitioner's questioning the jurisdiction of the Committee on the ground that - (i) The learned single Judge in W.P.No.19223 of 2011 has directed the Committee to go into the validity of those two circulars without prejudice to the right of the petitioner school to raise the jurisdictional issue. Therefore, when the order of the learned single Judge has become final and not challenged by the petitioner school, now they cannot complain before this Court that the Committee has got no jurisdiction. (ii) Even though opportunity was given to the petitioner school on many occasions by the Committee, they have not utilised the same and placed materials to show that the disputed fee collected will not come within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Committee. Therefore, without going before the Committee and explaining their stand they cannot question the jurisdiction of the Committee. 37. We are unable to appreciate the above contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General for the following reasons:- First of all, at the time of disposal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.19223 of 2011, the writ petitions challenging the applicability of the said Act to the CBSE schools were pending before this Court. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner school, the learned single Judge directed the Committee to go into that question. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner school, the learned single Judge directed the Committee to go into that question. Therefore, the jurisdiction contemplated in the order of the learned single Judge is not the jurisdiction over the extra curricular activities fees but on the other hand it is the jurisdiction over the Act itself on the CBSE Schools. No doubt, the Act was held to be applicable to the CBSE schools also in pursuant to the decision reported Lakshmi School Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others ( 2012 (6) CTC 8 ). But that does not mean that the Committee has got power in all respects, unless it is so empowered under the said Act against the CBSE schools or for that matter any other schools. Therefore, even though the Committee has got jurisdiction over the CBSE schools, whether the disputed fee collected would fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee is the issue always open to the petitioner to raise and agitate before this Court as it goes to the root of the matter. 38. Insofar as the other reason stated by the learned Additional Advocate General is concerned it is stated by the petitioner's counsel that in pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 19223 of 2011 the petitioner school had given a detailed explanation to the Committee by sending the same by registered post on 27.3.2012 and supported by a postal receipt indicating that the same has been sent to the Committee. Therefore, before taking a decision by the impugned order, the materials sent by the School were available before the Committee. At any event, even assuming that the petitioner has not participated before the Committee and submitted their explanation, still we feel that that cannot be put against the petitioner, when the very jurisdiction of the Committee itself is questioned in this writ petition in respect of the fees collected towards extra curricular activities. Needless to say that a person questioning the jurisdiction of an authority need not submit himself before him and raise such issue, if he has chosen to challenge the proceedings of such authority before the competent forum of law by raising the very jurisdiction of the authority itself. Therefore, on this reason also the learned Additional Advocate General is not justified in his submission. 39. Therefore, on this reason also the learned Additional Advocate General is not justified in his submission. 39. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the learned single Judge while passing the order in W.P.No. 19223 of 2011 has also directed the Central Board of School Education to inform the Committee subject to the objection of the petitioner school as to whether the activities for which the petitioner school seeks to claim extra charge, fall within the curriculum or outside the curriculum. By observing so, the learned Judge directed the Committee to consider those two circulars as to whether they are violative of the earlier passed on 3.6.2011. Once again the learned Judge had only directed the Committee to go into that aspect without prejudice to the objection of the school on the jurisdiction of the Committee. Thus, it is manifestly clear from the order of the learned Judge that the jurisdiction of the Committee over the disputed circulars has not been decided against the school and on the other hand it was left open. When the school is now questioning the jurisdiction in this writ petition, we find that there is no merit in contending that the petitioner school is not justified in raising the jurisdictional issue without challenging the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 19223 of 2011. Therefore, we reject the contention of the contesting respondents on this aspect. 40. Though we hold that the fee collected for extra curricular activities are not the fees within the definition and meaning of Section 2(e) and consequently, the Committee is not empowered to go into the same, neither the petitioner school nor any other school for that matter can take this order as giving a stamp of approval for their collection of fees towards the extra curricular activities at their whims and fancies. No doubt it is only optional. Even then, such optional collection must be within the financial competence of the parents to meet such expenses. By stipulating an exorbitant fees towards such extra curricular activities, the schools should not make the children to languish and the parents to feel overburdened. Though they are extra curricular activities leaving to the choice of the children to opt for it or not, still in these days of competitive world where only the fittest will survive, those activities are important and are almost opted by every student. Though they are extra curricular activities leaving to the choice of the children to opt for it or not, still in these days of competitive world where only the fittest will survive, those activities are important and are almost opted by every student. Thus, such option should be made available to the students as workable, viable and non-burdensome. The Schools owe much responsibility to see that the students are trained in those activities, so that when they come out of the school they come out with flying colours not only academically but also in other extra curricular activities which make them a complete student. Therefore, if the fees collected under the extra curricular activities are considered by the parents to be exorbitant or irrational or not proportionate to the facilities given, the parents are at liberty to approach the competent State educational authorities / CBSE Board and make complaint against such exorbitant collection. As and when such complaint is made, it is for the authorities to consider the same and decide the issue after giving due opportunity to both the parties. 41. For all these reasons, we hold that the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 10.4.2012 is unsustainable and without competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.