JUDGEMENT A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THE petitioner-Management has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to give effect to Notification dated 15th March, 2011, retrospectively with effect from second semester of 2009-10 batch and allow the petitioner to recover fees from the students on that basis. Further relief is claimed for quashing and setting aside the show-cause-notice received by the petitioner. The crux of the controversy, is that, in absence of any Notification for the concerned academic session, muchless, issued in exercise of powers under the Himachal Pradesh Private Technical and Vocational Educational Institutions (Regulation and Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2008, can the Authority prevent the Management from collecting fees from its students on the basis of the Notification, dated 15th March, 2011, issued by and in the name of Governor of Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of powers under Section 4(3) of the Act of 2008. In the first place, the stated notification dated 15th March, 2011 (Annexure P-3) explicitly mentions that it will be applicable to academic sessions 2011-12 and 2012-13. It has prospective application and cannot be invoked for anterior period 2009-11 as such. Further, the Notification issued by the State Government dated 3rd August, 2009, no doubt, does not refer to any provision of the Act of 2008, but, at the same time, it clearly provides that it was a provisional Notification issued by the Authorities for the year 2009-10 and in terms whereof, the Management of the Engineering College could recover fees from its students. 3. COUNSEL for the petitioner relies on Section 8(3) of the Act of 2008 and in particular proviso thereunder to contend that the provisional Notification cannot be given effect to beyond the period specified in the said Notification. In any case, it will be of no avail as the Authority failed to determine final fees in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 8 of the Act of 2008, within a period of 60 days from the issuance of that Notification. No doubt, there is no follow up Notification issued by the State after the Notification dated 3rd August, 2009, for the academic session 2009-10 nor for the academic session 2010-11. No doubt, there is no follow up Notification issued by the State after the Notification dated 3rd August, 2009, for the academic session 2009-10 nor for the academic session 2010-11. However, that would not give any right to the petitioner to charge fees from its students in excess of the amount specified in the provisional Notification. Notably, the validity of that Notification has not been assailed by the petitioner and in fact the petitioner acted upon the same and collected fees as specified therein from its students for the academic session 2009-10. Thus, the fact that no fresh notification was issued for the academic session 2010-11, would not give right to the petitioner to demand fees more than the fees specified in the Notification dated 3rd August, 2009 and in any case, in excess of the fees notified in the prospectus for the concerned academic sessions 2009-10 and 2010-11. Suffice it to hold that the petitioner cannot rely on the statutory Notification issued on 15th March, 2011, which explicitly applies to academic sessions 2011-12 and 2012-13 and has prospective application. Taking any other view would inevitably affect the rights of the students who had taken admission on the assumption that the fees payable by them for the concerned academic sessions was in terms of Prospectus, which was consistent with the fees prescribed in the Notification dated 3rd August, 2009. 4. CONSIDERED from any angle, no fault can be found with the decision of the Director, Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh in rejecting the representation made by the petitioner in this behalf, vide communication dated 9th July, 2012, Annexure R-2. In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief in terms of prayer clause (i) for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to collect fees from its students from the second semester of 2009-10 batch on the basis of Notification dated 15th March, 2011. As regards prayer clause (ii) of quashing and setting aside of show- cause-notice, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has offered explanation to the said show-cause-notice. It is open to the Appropriate Authority to decide all issues arising from the said show-cause-notice, except the ones dealt with hereinabove, on its own merits, in accordance with law. 5. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.