JUDGMENT Justice A.M.Khanwilkar, C.J. This Writ Petition, filed by the Himachal Pradesh Private Universities Management Association under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for a declaration that the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions (Regulatory Commission) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2010) and the Rules made thereunder are ultra vires the Constitution of India; and for consequential declaration that the assessment orders, circulars, notices issued by respondent No.3 are without authority of law and to quash the same. Indisputably, the members of the petitioner-Association are Private Universities established under the State legislation. According to the petitioner, the State Legislature has no legislative competence to enact the impugned Act, as the field of coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education is reserved exclusively for Parliament. That field is occupied by Entry 66 of List I. As a result, the Parliament’s power to enact law on that subject is both exclusive and overriding. In any event, the State Legislature has no power to prescribe offences and penalties for enforcing the standards laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and All India Council for Teachers Education (AICTE) and other central Authorities; moreso, when the Central Acts themselves have not prescribed for offences and penalties. The exclusive power to provide for offences and penalties for non-compliance of directions issued by the Central Authorities in exercise of power under central enactments exclusively vests in the Parliament under Entry 66 read with Entry 93 of the Union List. Further, both Section 8 of the impugned Act providing for fees and penalty payable and Section 11 dealing with penalties leviable are in substance and reality authorizing collection of tax intended to exploit the Private Universities for unjust enrichment of the State Regulatory Commission. The rates of fees and penalties prescribed under the Act and Rules are extortionate in nature. It is contended that the provisions of the impugned Act also suffer from excessive delegation, in addition to being arbitrary and violative of Article 14. For, it gives wide discretion to the Regulatory Commission to determine fees payable from Rs. 1/- to 1% of the total amounts paid by all the students of the University, including hostel fees and caution money; and penalty ranging from Rs. 1/- to rupees one crore without any legislative guidance. For, it gives wide discretion to the Regulatory Commission to determine fees payable from Rs. 1/- to 1% of the total amounts paid by all the students of the University, including hostel fees and caution money; and penalty ranging from Rs. 1/- to rupees one crore without any legislative guidance. It has also been asserted by the petitioners that the impugned Act is ex-facie discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For, it lays down standards of education and consequences for non-compliance thereof selectively qua Private Universities and not to all institutions of higher education throughout the State. There is no tangible reason why public Universities should be kept away from the requirement of similar compliances and moreso to suffer similar consequence provided under the impugned Act and Rules framed thereunder qua the Private Universities. Further, the impugned Act provides for severe penalties including for commission of minor lapse by the Private Universities which is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No basis for classification of Public Universities and Private Universities is spelt out from the impugned enactment and in any case, such classification with regard to subject covered by the impugned enactment is irrational and no nexus with the object sought to be achieved for maintenance of uniform minimum standards in all institutions or higher education throughout the country. According to the petitioners, the impugned enactment seeks to reverse the position expounded by the Apex Court that regulation of private un-aided institutions is permitted only to a limited extent, whereas in case of State aided or State managed Institutions, extensive regulation is permissible. Whereas the impugned Act provides for oppressive regulation of private un-aided institutions and does not regulate all State aided or State Managed Institutions for higher education in the matter of implementation of standards laid down by the Central Authorities in the same manner. Whereas the impugned Act provides for oppressive regulation of private un-aided institutions and does not regulate all State aided or State Managed Institutions for higher education in the matter of implementation of standards laid down by the Central Authorities in the same manner. To buttress the above submissions, the petitioners have pressed into service the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat University and another versus Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and others1, (paragraphs 22 & 23); Express Hotels Private Ltd. versus State of Gujarat and another2, (paragraph 15); Prem Chand Jain and another versus R.K.Chhabra3 (paragraphs 2 & 8); Osmania University Teachers’ Association versus State of Andhra Pradesh and another4 (paragraphs 3,5,8,12,14,15 & 21 to 30); State of T.N. and another versus Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others5 (paragraphs 9 to 12, 22, 27 & 41); Medical Council of India versus State of Karnataka and others6 (paragraphs 2,15,20,24 & 30); State of Maharashtra versus Sant Dnyaneshewar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others7 (paragraphs 55, 58, 61 to 64); Professor Yashpal and another versus State of Chhattisgarh and others8 (paragraphs 28 & 33); Association of Management of Private Colleges versus All India Council for Technical Education and others9, (paragraphs 35, 39 & 40); Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another versus State of M.P. and others10 (paragraph 36); TMA Pai Foundation & others versus State of Karnataka & others11 (paragraphs 39, 40, 46 to 68); Standard Chartered Bank & others versus Directorate of Enforcement and others12 (paragraph 29); Karnataka Rare Earth and another versus Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology and another13 (paragraph 13); A.N. Parsuraman etc. versus State of Tamil Nadu14, (paragraph 1,3,5, 8 to 10); Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan versus State of Punjab and others15 (paragraphs 10, 21 & 22). 2. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State on the other hand defended the validity of the Act and would contend that the State alone is competent to “regulate Universities” in terms of Entry 32 of the State List and the impugned Act falls within the ambit of that Entry. He further submits that the field covered by the Act is the specific field available to the State. The State alone can legislate on the said field. According to him Entry 66 of Union List does not cover the field of “Regulation of Universities”. He further submits that the field covered by the Act is the specific field available to the State. The State alone can legislate on the said field. According to him Entry 66 of Union List does not cover the field of “Regulation of Universities”. Thus, the Parliament has no power muchless exclusive power to enact law on the subject of regulating the Universities. That vests exclusively in the State Legislature. Further, he has placed reliance on Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and contends that the same conspicuously omits to refer to “regulation of Universities” which is exclusively the subject covered by Entry 32 of the State List. According to him, the entries in the Union List and the State List are mutually exclusive and the subject covered by the respective lists do not fall in the Concurrent List. For that reason, on interplay of the relevant entries, there can be no manner of doubt that the subject on which the impugned enactment has been legislated by the State Legislature is exclusively covered by Entry 32 of the State List. He has placed reliance on the purport of Article 254 of the Constitution of India to buttress this submission. Learned Advocate General demonstrated from the provisions of the impugned Act and Rules framed thereunder that the scope of activities such as inspection required to be done under the Central Legislation is materially different than the inspection to be carried out under the impugned Act and Rules made thereunder. It is contended that on a fair reading of the said provisions, it is evident that the same do not encroach upon any of the powers of the Central Authorities or the subject on which the Parliament alone can legislate. It is argued that in pith and substance the impugned Act is covered by Entry 32 of the State List and no part of it falls within the ambit of Entry 66 in the Union List. He has also refuted the argument of the petitioners that the provisions of the impugned Act are either unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. He contends that the Regulatory Commission constituted under the impugned Act is intended to be self sustaining; and, therefore, the Act provides for creation of funds for the Commission. He has also refuted the argument of the petitioners that the provisions of the impugned Act are either unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. He contends that the Regulatory Commission constituted under the impugned Act is intended to be self sustaining; and, therefore, the Act provides for creation of funds for the Commission. The Regulatory Commission is essential for securing the interests of the students community and to ensure that the Private Universities adhere to all the mandatory directions and requirements specified by the Central Authorities under the Central Act. According to the respondents, the Act does not provide for standards of education but is intended to supplement the cause espoused by the Central Authorities in exercise of power conferred on it by the Central Legislation. He submits that there is presumption of constitutionality of the Act and since there is enabling provision in Entry 32 in the State List as also corresponding provision in Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the impugned Act is valid and within the legislative competence of the State. He further submits that education in its widest term is dealt with under Entry 25, List III and that only higher education is dealt with under Entry 66, List I. However, Entry 44 of List I and Entry 32 of List II, are also to be reckoned for understanding the separate legislative fields of Parliament and the State Legislatures. It is further submitted that when education was being added as Entry 25 in List III, framers of Constitution knew that the species relating to education in University, being the genus of education are already covered under Entry 66 in List I and Entry 32 in List II. The framers of Constitution deliberately excluded power of ‘incorporation, regulation and winding up’ of the Universities in Entry 44 in List I and decided to include these legislative fields to be subject matter of Entry 32 in List II. It is further submitted that on conjoint reading of Entry 44 in List I and Entry 32 in List II, it is clear that the framers of Constitution wanted to bestow legislative powers relating to incorporation, regulation and winding up of the Universities exclusively in the State Legislatures. It is further submitted that on conjoint reading of Entry 44 in List I and Entry 32 in List II, it is clear that the framers of Constitution wanted to bestow legislative powers relating to incorporation, regulation and winding up of the Universities exclusively in the State Legislatures. He has further submitted that the words “Education and Universities” used in Entry 25 in List III cannot be given wider meaning so as to dilute/override the specific legislative field conferred on State Legislatures under Entry 32 in List II after specifically excluding the same from the domain of Parliament under Entry 44 and 66 of List I. That power cannot be conferred again on the Parliament by an interpretative process. It is further submitted that the legislative fields under Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 in List I have been protected and preserved to be in exclusive domain of Parliament by making Entry 25 in List III expressly subject to the aforesaid entries. Therefore, it would be incongruous to construe that the legislative field which is specifically excluded under Entry 44 in List I, is still available in the legislative field assigned to the Parliament by giving extended meaning and by reading something, which is not actually there under Entry 25 in List III read with Entry 66 in List I. To buttress the above submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights versus Union of India16, (paragraph 65); State of A.P. versus K. Purushotham Reddy and others17, (paragraphs 3 to 10, 19 to 20, 22 to 25, 27, 29, 33 & 35); Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. And others Versus The State of Orissa and others18, (paragraph 17 to 23); State of Andhra Pradesh and another versus Lavu Narendranath & others etc.19, (paragraphs 7 & 9); Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali Ltd. versus State of Gujarat & Another20, (paragraphs 5 to 7); State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Versus Adhiyamam Educational and Research Institute (supra) (paragraphs 13 & 41); R. Chitralekha versus State of Mysore and others21, (paragraph 16 6); P.N. Krishna Lal and others versus Govt. Versus Adhiyamam Educational and Research Institute (supra) (paragraphs 13 & 41); R. Chitralekha versus State of Mysore and others21, (paragraph 16 6); P.N. Krishna Lal and others versus Govt. of Kerala and another, 199522 (paragraphs 8 & 9).15 1967 (3) SCR 55716 (1998) 2 SCC 109 17 (2003) 9 SCC 564 18 AIR 1961 SC 459 – (1961) 2 SCR 537 19 1971 (1) SCC 607 20 (1992) 2 SCC 42 21 AIR 1964 SC 1823 22 1995(Supp.) (2) SCC 187 23 (1989) 4 SCC 683 3. Counsel for the Regulatory Commission besides adopting the arguments of the learned Advocate General, in addition, has pointed out the factual position which was placed on record by way of affidavit disclosing that the Private Universities were indulging in exploitation of students community and mal-administration and also about the source of income and corresponding expenditure of the Commission to dispel the charge of profiteering. This factual position was sought to be demonstrated to justify the necessity of State Regulatory Commission to secure the interests of the students community. Even the respondent No. 3 submits that no indulgence should be shown to the petitioners. 4.Having considered the rival submissions, it may be apposite to first advert to the Scheme of Part XI of the Constitution of India, which provides for relations between Union and the States. Chapter I thereof deals with the legislative relations. Under the heading Distribution of Legislative Powers, Article 245 delineates the extent of laws to be made by the Parliament and by the Legislature of a State. It postulates that the Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, subject to the provisions of the Constitution. The Legislature of a State has power to make laws for the whole or any part of the State, subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Article 245(2) envisages that no law made by the Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra territorial operation. The subject matter of laws to be made by the Parliament and by the Legislatures of States is dealt with in Article 246. 5. Considering the issue raised before us about the competency of the State Legislature, it would be appropriate to reproduce Article 246, as in force, which reads thus: “246. The subject matter of laws to be made by the Parliament and by the Legislatures of States is dealt with in Article 246. 5. Considering the issue raised before us about the competency of the State Legislature, it would be appropriate to reproduce Article 246, as in force, which reads thus: “246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Union List”). (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State 1[***] also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Concurrent List”). (3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State 1 [***] has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “State List”). (4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included 2 [in a State] notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. [ 1. The words and letters “specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule” omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, sec. 29 and Sch. 2. Subs. by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, sec. 29 and Sch., for “in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule”.” 6. The purport of this Article has been examined by the Apex Court in catena of decisions, including the ones relied before us. It is well established position that the power to legislate on subject matters covered by Union List in the Seventh Schedule is both exclusive and overriding in the Parliament. The power of State Legislature is taken away in respect of those subject matters. Further, even though the Parliament has not made law on the matter covered under the Union List, Legislature of the State cannot enact any law on that subject. The power of State Legislature is taken away in respect of those subject matters. Further, even though the Parliament has not made law on the matter covered under the Union List, Legislature of the State cannot enact any law on that subject. Similarly, the State Legislature has exclusive power to legislate on subject matters enlisted in the State List in the Seventh Schedule. The Parliament cannot legislate on those subject matters. However, both the Parliament as well as Legislature of any State has power to make laws in relation to any of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule. In case, however, the Parliament has already made law on the subject enumerated in List III and the same is inconsistent with the law made by the Legislature of States, Article 254 of the Constitution deals with that situation. The same, as in force, reads thus: “254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.-(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State 1[***] with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State:Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. [1. [1. The words and letters “specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule” omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, sec. 29 and Sch.]” 7.It will be useful to straightaway advert to the latest decision of the Apex Court (three Judges) in the case of PROF. YASHPAL (supra), in which the issue under consideration has been elaborately examined and answered in the following manner: “28. Though incorporation of a University as a legislative head is a State subject (Entry 32 List II) but basically a University is an institution for higher education and research. Entry 66 of List I is coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. There can thus be a clash between the powers of the State and that of the Union. The interplay of various entries in this regard in the three lists of the Seventh Schedule and the real import of Entry 66 of List I have been examined in several decisions of this Court. In Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, AIR 1963 SC 703 , a decision by a Constitution Bench rendered prior to the Forty-second Amendment when Entry 11 of List II was in existence, it was held that Items 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items the power to legislate is vested exclusively in Parliament. The use of the expression “subject to” in item 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule clearly indicates that the legislation in respect of excluded matters cannot be undertaken by the State Legislatures. In AIR para 23, the Court held as under: (SCR pp.137-38) “Power of the State to legislate in respect of education including Universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parliament, whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be restricted. If a subject of legislation is covered by Items 63 to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of ‘education including Universities’ power to legislate on that subject must lie with Parliament Item 11 of List II and Item 66 of List I must be harmoniously construed. If a subject of legislation is covered by Items 63 to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of ‘education including Universities’ power to legislate on that subject must lie with Parliament Item 11 of List II and Item 66 of List I must be harmoniously construed. The two entries undoubtedly overlap: but to the extent of overlapping, the power conferred by Item 66 List I must prevail over the power of the State under Item 11 of List II. It is manifest that the excluded heads deal primarily with education in institutions of national or special importance and institutions of higher education includingresearch, sciences, technology and vocational training of labour.” 29. The following observations in AIR paras 24 and 25 highlight the supremacy of legislation made by the Parliament with reference to Entry 66: (SCR pp. 140-41) “(24.) The validity of the State legislation on University education and as regards the education in technical and scientific institutions not falling within Entry 64 of List I would have to be judged having regard to whether it impinges on the field reserved for the Union under Entry 66. In other words, the validity of State legislation would depend upon whether it prejudicially affects co-ordination and determination of standards, but not upon the existence of some definite Union legislation directed to achieve that purpose. If there be Union legislation in respect of co­ordination and determination of standards, that would have paramountcy over the State law by virtue of the first part of Art. 254(1); even if that power be not exercised by the Union Parliament the relevant legislative entries being in the exclusive lists, a State law trenching upon the Union field would still be invalid. (25.) Item 66 is a legislative head and in interpreting it, unless it is expressly or of necessity found conditioned by the words used therein, a narrow or restricted interpretation will not be put upon the generality of the words. Power to legislate on a subject should normally be held to extend to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in that subject. Power to legislate on a subject should normally be held to extend to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in that subject. Again there is nothing either in Item 66 or elsewhere in the Constitution which supports the submission that the expression ‘coordination’ must mean in the context in which it is used merely evaluation, coordination in its normal connotation means harmonizing or bringing into proper relation in which all the things coordinated participate in a common pattern of action. The power to coordinate, therefore, is not merely power to evaluate, it is a power to harmonize or secure relationship for concerted action. The power conferred by Item 66, List I is not conditioned by the existence of a state of emergency or unequal standards calling for the exercise of the power.” 30. The same question was also examined in considerable detail in State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute, 1995 (4) SCC 104 , and the conclusions drawn were summarized in para 41 of the Report and sub-paras (i) and (ii) thereof are being reproduced below : (SCC pp.134-35) “41. (i) The expression ‘coordination’ used in Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonization with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make ‘coordination’ either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of the valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. (ii) To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative.” 31. In Osmania University Teachers Assn. In Osmania University Teachers Assn. v. State of A.P., 1987 (4) SCC 671 , the Court reiterated that it was the exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to determine the standards for higher education and the same should not be lowered at the hands of any particular State as it was of great importance to national progress. After referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Kerala SEB v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 1976 (1) SCC 466 , where it was held that when an entry is in general terms in List II and part of that entry is in specific terms in List I, the entry in List I takes effect notwithstanding the entry in List II, the Court held as under in para 14 of the Report: (SCC p.676) “14. Entry 25 List III relating to education including technical education, medical education and universities has been made subject to the power of Parliament to legislate under Entries 63 to 66 of List I. Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III should, therefore, be read together. Entry 66 gives power to Union to see that a required standard of higher education in the country is maintained. The standard of Higher Education including scientific and technical should not be lowered at the hands of any particular State or States. Secondly, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to coordinate and determine the standards for higher education. That power includes the power to evaluate, harmonize and secure proper relationship to any project of national importance. It is needless to state that such a coordinate action in higher education with proper standards, is of paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national interest, the legislative field in regard to ‘education’ has been distributed between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule.” 32. The interplay of Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III was again examined by a Constitution Bench in Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P., 1999 (7) SCC 120 , in the context of lowering of standards by the State for admission to a Post Graduate course in a Medical College and it was held that the State cannot while controlling education in the State impinge on standards in institutions for higher education because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. While considering the question whether norms for admission have any connection with the standards of education and that they are only covered by Entry 25 of List III, it was observed that any lowering of the norms of admission does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutions of higher education. The standard of education in an institution depends on various factors like, (i) the caliber of teaching staff; (ii) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a high level of education in a given span of time; (iii) the student- teacher ratio; (iv) equipment and laboratory facilities; (v) caliber of the students admitted; (vi) adequate accommodation in the institution; (vii) the standard of examinations held including the manner in which the papers are set and examined; and (viii) the evaluation of practical examinations done. It was pointed out that education involves a continuous interaction between the teachers and the students. The base of teaching, the level to which teaching can rise and the benefit which the students ultimately receive depends as much on the caliber of the students as on the caliber of the teachers and the availability of adequate infrastructural facilities. 33. The consistent and settled view of this Court, therefore, is that in spite of incorporation of Universities as a legislative head being in the State List, the whole gamut of the University which will include teaching, quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and also research activity being carried on will not come within the purview of the State legislature on account of a specific Entry on coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical education being in the Union List for which Parliament alone is competent. It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that proper standards are maintained in institutions for higher education or research throughout the country and also uniformity in standards is maintained.” (emphasis supplied) 8.In the case of Prem Chand Jain (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 8 observed thus: “8. “Education including universities” was a State subject until by the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution in 1976, that entry was omitted from the State list and, was taken into Entry 25 of the Concurrent list. “Education including universities” was a State subject until by the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution in 1976, that entry was omitted from the State list and, was taken into Entry 25 of the Concurrent list. But as already pointed out the Act essentially intended to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in universities and that, as already indicated, is squarely covered under Entry 66 of List I. While legislating for a purpose germane to the subject covered by that entry and establishing a University Grants Commission, Parliament considered it necessary, as a regulatory measure, to prohibit unauthorised conferment of degrees and diplomas as also use of the word ‘university’ by institution which had not been either established or incorporated by special legislation. We are not inclined to agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that in doing so Parliament entrenched upon legislative power reserved for the State legislature. The legal position is well-settled that the entries incorporated in the lists covered by Schedule VII are not powers of legislation but ‘fields’ of legislation. (Harakchand v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCR 479 : AIR 1970 SC 1453 ). In State of Bihar v. Kameshwar, 1952 SCR 889 : ( AIR 1952 SC 252 ) this Court has indicated that such entries are mere legislative heads and are of an enabling character. This Court has clearly ruled that the language of the entries should be given the widest scope or amplitude. Navinchandra v. CIT, (1955) 1 SCR 829 : AIR 1955 SC 58 . Each general word has been asked to be extended to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be comprehended. (See State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley, 1959 SCR 379 : AIR 1958 SC 560 ). It has also been held by this Court in Check Post Officer v. K.P. Abdulla Bros., (1971) 2 SCR 817 , that an entry confers power upon the legislature to legislate for matters ancillary or incidental, including provision for avoiding the law. As long as the legislation is within the permissible field in pith and substance, objection would not be entertained merely on the ground that while enacting legislation, provision has been made for a matter which though germane for the purpose for which competent legislation is made it covers an aspect beyond it. As long as the legislation is within the permissible field in pith and substance, objection would not be entertained merely on the ground that while enacting legislation, provision has been made for a matter which though germane for the purpose for which competent legislation is made it covers an aspect beyond it. In a series of decisions this Court has opined that if an enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution upon the legislature enacting it, it cannot be held to be invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature. (See State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy, (1978) 1 SCR 641 : AIR 1978 SC 215 ; K. S. E. Board v. Indian Aluminium Co., (1976) 1 SCR 552 : AIR 1976 SC 1031 ; Subrahmanyan Chettier v. Mutuswami; 1940 FCR 188:AIR 1941 FC 47, Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce, 1947 FCR 28: AIR 1947 PC 60; Ganga Sugar Corpn. v. State of U. P., (1980) 1 SCR 769 : (1980) 1 SCC 223 ). We, therefore, do not accept the submission that the definition of university given in Section 2 (f) or the prohibition in Section 23 of the Act are ultra vires the Parliament on the ground that such provisions are beyond its legislative competence.” `9. Once again, in the case of Express Hotels vs. State of Gujarat (supra), paragraph 15 in particular, the Apex Court restated that the entries in the Lists forming part of the Seventh Schedule should not be read in a narrow or pedantic sense, but must be given their fullest meaning and the widest amplitude and be held to extend to all ancillary and subsidiary matters, which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in them. 10. Besides the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat University (supra) about the import of the expression “subject to”, in the case of State of Maharashtra versus Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra), the Apex Court dealt with the efficacy of the expression “coordination and determination of standards”, as appearing in Entry 66 and in paragraph 62 observed thus: “62. From the above decisions, in our judgment, the law appears to be very well settled. From the above decisions, in our judgment, the law appears to be very well settled. So far as coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research, scientific and technical institutions are concerned, the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the State has no power to encroach upon the legislative power of Parliament. It is only when the subject is covered by Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution that there is a concurrent power of Parliament as well as the State Legislatures and appropriate Act can be by the State Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions under the Constitution.” 11.In Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra), which is adverted to in the decision of Prof. Yash Pal (supra), in paragraph 36 of the said decision, the Apex Court delineated some of the matters which are covered by Entry 66 of List I. Paragraph 36 of the said decision reads thus: “36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List-I. For example, a State may, for admission to the post­graduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List-I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can, and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher education. Standards of education in an institution or college depend on various factors. But any lowering of the norms laid down can, and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher education. Standards of education in an institution or college depend on various factors. Some of these are: (1)the calibre of the teaching staff; (2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a high level of education in the given span of time; (3) the student-teacher ratio; (4) the ratio between the students and the hospital beds available to each student; (5) the calibre of the students admitted to the institution; (6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or hospital facilities for training in the case of medical colleges; (7) adequate accommodation for the college and the attached hospital; and (8) the standard of examinations held including the manner in which the papers are set and examined and the clinical performance is judged.” It is unnecessary to multiply authorities on the matter in issue. 12. Keeping in mind the legal position expounded in the aforesaid decisions, the moot question that needs to be answered in the context of the stand taken by the rival parties is – whether the Act of 2010 is ascribable to Entry 32 of the State List (List II) or for that matter, Entry 25 of List III and none of the provisions trench upon the exclusive power of the Parliament to enact law on the subject ascribable to Entry 66 of Union List (List I). 13.For that, we may have to consider the Act as a whole as well as Section-wise to ascertain the sweep of the enactment and, in particular, the subject matter covered therein. We deem it apposite to reproduce the entire Act of 2010 at this stage. The same reads thus: “THE HIMACHAL PRADESH PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (REGULATORY COMMISSION) ACT, 2010(AS ASSENTED TO BY THE GOVERNOR ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2011) AN ACT to provide for establishment of the Regulatory Commission and Regulatory mechanism in the State for the purpose of ensuring appropriate standard of admission, teaching, examination, research and protection of interest of students in the Private Educational Institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto; BE it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh in the Sixty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows:- 1. Short title and application.¯(1) This Act may be called the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions (Regulatory Commission) Act, 2010. Short title and application.¯(1) This Act may be called the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions (Regulatory Commission) Act, 2010. (2) It shall apply to the Private Educational Institutions in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2.Definitions. ¯ In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a)“Commission” means the Regulatory Commission established under section 3 of this Act; (b) “member” means a member of the Commission and includes the Chairperson;(c) “Private Educational Institutions” means all the private educational institutions in the State viz. degree colleges, professional colleges of Education, Institutes of Technical Education, Management, Law, Engineering, Medicine, Pharmacy, Paramedical Institutions and Universities, deemed Universities, Centres of Excellence, or any other educational institutions of higher learning, except schools affiliated to any recognized Board of School Education;(d) “regulations” means regulations made by the Commission under section 19 of this Act;(e) “Regulatory body” means any State or Central Statutory Regulatory Body set up for the purpose; (f) “student” means a person enrolled in the Private Educational Institution for pursuing a course of study for the award of a degree, diploma, certificate or other academic distinction; (g) “University Grants Commission” means the University Grant Commission established under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; (h) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act; (i)“State Government” means the Government of Himachal Pradesh; and (j)“Higher Education” means study of a curriculum or course for the pursuit of knowledge beyond 10+2 level. 3. Establishment of Commission. ¯(1) The State Government may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, establish the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission for the purpose of providing a regulatory mechanism in the State and for working as an interface between the State Government and the Central Regulatory Bodies for the purpose of ensuring appropriate standards of admission, teaching, examination, research, extension programmes and protection of the interest of the students of the Private Educational Institutions. (2) The Commission shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and sued by the said name. (3) The headquarters of the Commission shall be at such place as may be notified by the State Government. 4. Composition of Commission. (2) The Commission shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and sued by the said name. (3) The headquarters of the Commission shall be at such place as may be notified by the State Government. 4. Composition of Commission. ¯ (1) The Commission shall consist of a Chairperson and maximum of two members from amongst persons of eminence in public life or in the field of higher education or who have remained Secretary or above to the Government of Himachal Pradesh or held equivalent post in the Government of India for a period of three years or more. Provided that the Chairperson and the members shall not be from the same field of specialization.(2) The Chairperson and members of the Commission shall be appointed by the State Government, on the recommendations of a Search Committee, for a period of three years or until he or she attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, and such Chairperson or members may be eligible for a second term subject to the upper age limit of 65 years: Provided that after the expiry of the term of office, the Chairperson or the member, as the case may be, shall be, ineligible for further employment or any assignment in any of the Private Educational Institutions within Himachal Pradesh or their associate offices or companies within or outside Himachal Pradesh for a period of three years.(3)The search Committee shall consist of the following, namely:- (i) Chief Secretary to the Government— Chairperson; of Himachal Pradesh. (ii) Principal Secretary (Technical Education) — Member; to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. (iii) Principal Secretary (Higher Education)—Member- to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Secretary. 5. Removal of member. ¯ (1) No member shall be removed from office except in accordance with the provisions of this section. (ii) Principal Secretary (Technical Education) — Member; to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. (iii) Principal Secretary (Higher Education)—Member- to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Secretary. 5. Removal of member. ¯ (1) No member shall be removed from office except in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) the State Government may by order remove from office any member, if he- (a) has been adjudged an insolvent by the competent court; or (b)has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; or (c) has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a member; or (d) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member ; or (e) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest; or (f) has been guilty of proven misbehavior; or (g)has failed to discharge his duties: Provided that no member shall be removed from his office on any ground specified in clauses (d), (e), (f) or (g) unless an enquiry has been conducted for this purpose and the member has been given an opportunity to defend himself. 6. Officers and other employees of the Commission. ¯ (1) There shall be a Secretary of the Commission who shall be appointed by the State Government in consultation with the Commission on such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed. (2) The Commission may appoint such officers and employees as it considers necessary, for the efficient performance of the functions of the Commission, after approval of the State Government. (3) The terms and conditions of service of the officers and employees of the Commission shall be such as may be prescribed. 7. Meetings. ¯ The Commission shall meet, as often as may be necessary, at such time and place and observe such procedure, as may be prescribed in the regulations. 8. Fund. ¯ The Commission shall establish a fund to which shall be credited- (a)by the Private Educational Institutions such percentage of total fees every year as may be assessed by the Commission from time to time but not exceeding one percent of the total fees; (b) loan from the State Government which will be repayable within three years; (c)any other grants received from any other source; and (d)all sums received by way of penalties. 9. Powers and functions of the Commission. 9. Powers and functions of the Commission. ¯ (1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to ensure that standards of admission, teaching, examination, research, extension programme, qualified teachers and infrastructure, are being maintained by the Private Educational Institutions in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Regulatory Bodies of the Central Government or the State Government or by the Central Government or the State Government from time to time. In case of failure of the Educational Institution to meet the standards laid down, the Commission shall have the power to penalize the Educational Institutions under section 11 of the Act and in case of successive failure of an Institution to meet the standards, the Commission may recommend to the State Government/ Regulatory Body for the winding up of the Institution.(2) The Commission shall ensure that the admissions in the Private Educational Institutions are based on merit achieved in National Common Entrance Test or the State Common Entrance test or any other test as notified by the State Government and where there is no National Level Common Entrance Test, or State Level Common Entrance Test or any other test, the merit shall be determined strictly on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination.(3) The Commission shall develop an appropriate mechanism for receipt and redressal of grievances of students and parents, and direct the private institution to set-up a proper Grievances Redressal mechanism for redressal of complaints reported to the Commission. Such complaints shall be addressed within the time fixed by the Commission with details of the steps taken by the institution to redress such complaint.4) The Commission may conduct inspections of Private Educational Institutions as and when required and may form expert committees, for inspections of Private Educational Institutions. (5) The Commission shall have the power to monitor and regulate fees in Private Educational Institutions. 10. Procedure and Powers of the Commission. (5) The Commission shall have the power to monitor and regulate fees in Private Educational Institutions. 10. Procedure and Powers of the Commission. ¯ (1) The Commission shall, for the purposes of any inquiry or proceedings under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely :- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence; (c)receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning of any public record; (e) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses; (f) reviewing its decisions, directions and orders; (g) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Commission shall have the powers to pass such interim order in any proceeding, hearing or matter as the Commission may consider appropriate. (3) The Commission may authorize any person, as it deems fit, to represent the interest of the students and parents in the proceedings before it.(4) All disputes under this Act shall be decided summarily in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 11. Penalties. ¯ (1) The Commission may, for the contravention of any of the provision of this Act or the rules or regulations made there under, or directions issued by the Commission, impose penalty, in such manner as may be prescribed, but not exceeding one crore rupees: Provided that the maximum penalty for a second or subsequent contravention shall be five crore rupees; Provided further that no penalty shall be imposed unless the institution concerned is given an opportunity of being heard. (2) The penalty imposed under sub-section (1) shall be recoverable from the endowment fund or any other Fund or as arrear of land revenue from the Educational Institution concerned. 12. Accounts and Audit of the Commission. ¯ (1) The Commission shall maintain its accounts in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2)The accounts of the Commission shall be audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Commission shall send a copy of the audit report to the State Government. 13. Annual report. Accounts and Audit of the Commission. ¯ (1) The Commission shall maintain its accounts in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2)The accounts of the Commission shall be audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Commission shall send a copy of the audit report to the State Government. 13. Annual report. ¯ (1) The Commission shall, as soon as, may be, after the end of each financial year, prepare and submit to the State Government, before such date and in such form as may be prescribed, a report giving an account of its activities during the previous year and the State Government, shall cause every such report to be laid before the Legislative Assembly as soon as may be, after its receipt. (2) The Commission shall send a copy of the audited annual accounts of the Commission to the State Government every year, and the State Government shall cause such accounts to be laid before the Legislative Assembly. 14. Indemnity. ¯ No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against Chairperson, any member, officer or employee of the Commission in respect of anything which is, in good faith, done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or the rules made thereunder. 15. Members and employees to be public servants. ¯ The Members and other employees of the Commission shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 (45 of 1860) of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Power to issue directions. ¯ The State Government may issue such directions to the Commission as in its opinion, are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act and the Commission shall give effect to all such directions. 17. Act to have overriding effect. ¯ The Provisions of this Act or rule or order made there under, shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. 18. Power to make rules. ¯ (1) The State Government may, by notification publish in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (a)the terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson, the members and the Secretary of the Commission. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (a)the terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson, the members and the Secretary of the Commission. (b) mode of authentication of the orders and decisions of the Commission and instruments issued by it. (c) the form and manner in which the accounts shall be maintained by the Commission under section 12; (d) the minimum and maximum limit of the penalty under section 11 and the manner in which such penalty is to be imposed; and (e) such other matters as may be required for proper functioning of the Commission. 19. Power to make regulations. ¯The Commission may, with the prior approval of the State Government, make regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act. 20. Rules and regulations to be laid in Legislative Assembly. ¯ Every rule and regulation made under sections 18 and 19 of this Act shall respectively be laid, as soon as may be after these are made, before the Legislative Assembly. 21. Powers to remove difficulties. ¯ If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty: Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of this Act.” 14.We also deem it appropriate to reproduce the Rules framed under the Act of 2010, which read thus: “Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Higher Education No.EDN-A-Ka(3)-1/201 1 Dated Shimla-2, the 19-05-2011 NOTIFICATION In exercise of powers conferred by section 18 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions (Regulatory Commission)Act 2010(Act No 15 of 2011), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make the following rules for carrying out the purposes of the said Act, namely:- 1.Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions (Regulatory Commission) Rules, 2011. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh. 2. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Definitions.- (1) In these rules unless the context otherwise requires,- (a)“Act” means the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions(Regulatory Commission) Act, 2010 (Act No.15 of 2011); (b)“Chairperson” means the Chairperson of the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission; (c) “Department of Higher Education” means the department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh; (d) “fee” means the total fee and fund under any name charged by the private educational institutions / universities as tuition and all other fees, institutional development fund, caution money and hostel charges etc.; (e)“Form” means a form appended to these rules; (f) “Government” means the Government of Himachal Pradesh; (g) “Governor” means Governor of Himachal Pradesh; (h)“State” means the State of Himachal Pradesh; and (i)“the total monthly emoluments” means emoluments as specified by the Government from time to time. (2) All other words and expressions used in these rules but not defined shall have the same meanings as have been respectively assigned to them in the Act. 3. Terms and Conditions of service of Chairperson and members.- (1) The Chairperson and members shall receive pay and allowances as admissible to the Principal Secretary and Secretary respectively to the Government from time to time.(2) Ifthe Chairperson or a member, at the time of appointment is a person who has retired from the service of the Government, a Local Body, a University or any other body wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government he shall be entitled to get such total monthly emoluments as last drawn, reduced by the amount of pension(including commuted portion of pension), if any and excluding pension equivalent to DCRG. He will however, be entitled to draw the full amount of pension, if any in addition.(3) The Chairperson and members shall be entitled to the residential accommodation at headquarters of the Commission, if available in general pool, equivalent to that as admissible to Principal Secretary and Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, respectively.(4) The Chairperson and members shall be entitled to House Rent allowance(HRA) admissible as per Government of Himachal Pradesh rules regarding House Rent Allowance for the time being in force and applicable to the Principal Secretary and Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, respectively alongwith telephone with STD facilities in the office and residence. (5)The Chairperson and the members shall be entitled to such Traveling Allowance and Daily Allowance as are admissible to the Principal Secretary and Secretary of the Government, respectively.(6) The Chairperson and the members shall be entitled to such medical benefits, leave and LTC as are admissible to the Principal Secretary and Secretary of the Government, respectively.(7) In respect of any other matter pertaining to service conditions for which there is no provision in these rules the Chairperson and other members of the Commission shall be governed by the specific orders of the State Government. 4. Terms and Conditions of officers and other employees of the Commission.- (1) The staff of the Commission shall consist of a Secretary and such number of other officers and employees as the Government may determine from time to time.(2) The Secretary shall be a person in government service not below the rank of Deputy Secretary of State Government or an educationist in Government Service not below the rank of Principal of Government College and shall be appointed by the Government, in consultation with the Commission.(3) The service conditions of the Secretary shall be the same as in his parent department of the Government. (4) Initially the staff of the Commission shall be appointed on secondment basis or through contract appointment, as per terms and conditions of the existing staff of department of Higher Education till the Recruitment and Promotion Rules/Regulations are framed by the Commission in consultation and with the approval of the Government. 5. Functions of Commission.- (1) The Regulatory Commission shall perform all functions as laid down in section 9 of the Act as well as such other functions as may be deemed fit to achieve the objectives laid down in section 9 of the Act. The Commission shall ensure due admission procedure of students, framing of syllabus, academic calendar, good standard of teaching, setting of papers, conduct of examinations, method of internal evaluation, evaluation of final examination, declaration of the result and award of degree/diploma/certificate in accordance with Act and rules and provisions governing private and affiliating University. (2) Other such matters concerning the Private Universities and Private Institutions of Higher Education not covered under sub-rule (1) may be referred to the Government. 6. (2) Other such matters concerning the Private Universities and Private Institutions of Higher Education not covered under sub-rule (1) may be referred to the Government. 6. Amount of penalty to be imposed.- (1) The Commission shall be empowered to impose penalty on the Private Educational Institutions and Universities as per provisions laid down in section 11 of the Act and the minimum penalty shall be as follows :- (a) Admission.- If the admission of the student is done in violation of section 9 of the Act, penalty shall be twice the amount of actual fee charged by the Private Educational Institutions from such student. (b)Deviation of fee charged from the student.- In case any admitted student is charged fee in excess of the amount fixed and approved by the Government / Competent Authority, under the provisions of an Act, the penalty shall be three times the actual amount charged from the student over and above the specified fee. (c) Qualification of teachers.- In case a teacher is appointed who does not fulfill the qualification as specified by the Regulatory body then penalty of ‘ 20,000/- per month per such (unqualified) teacher, shall be imposed on the Institution. (d) Shortage of the teachers.- If the number of teachers appointed to teach a course is not as per the requirement specified by the Regulatory body then penalty of ‘ 20,000/- per month per shortfall of teacher shall be imposed on the Institution. After three months the rate of the penalty shall be doubled. (e) Examination.- Any degree/diploma/ certificate awarded to a student without the proper conduct of examination and evaluation shall invoke a penalty of ‘ 25 lakh per student. (f)Infrastructure.- If the infrastructure of the institution is found short of the norms set for infrastructure by the Regulatory body or the Government, the penalty at the rate of ‘ 2 lakh per month shall be charged till such time the deficiency is made good and its compliance reported to the Commission. (g)Distance Education Mode or Extension Centres.- If an educational institution starts any distance education programme or its extension centre without the prior approval of the Government and also of the regulatory body, a penalty of ‘ 10 lakh per month shall beimposed, till discontinuation of the same. (g)Distance Education Mode or Extension Centres.- If an educational institution starts any distance education programme or its extension centre without the prior approval of the Government and also of the regulatory body, a penalty of ‘ 10 lakh per month shall beimposed, till discontinuation of the same. (h) All other remaining issues and matters.- On other issues, not covered under clauses (a) to (g) of this rule, projecting any kind of violations of the provisions of the Act and these rules, penalty shall be imposed at the rates as may be deemed fit by the Commission, but in no case the penalty shall be more than the maximum penalty provided under the Act.(2) The Commission before imposing any penalty shall give an opportunity to the concerned Institution to present and defend its case, and then pass a reasoned order for imposing the penalty. (3) The Commission shall be empowered to impose maximum penalty on any of the issues and matters covered under clauses (a) to (h) of sub-rule (1) of this rule in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Act. 7. Operation of the Fund.- (1) The Fund established under section 8 shall be operated by the Commission through its Secretary or the designated officer of the Commission. (2) The Commission shall make available the specimen signatures of the authorized signatories to the nominated bank for their information and for operation of the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission Fund Account.(3) The grants or loans allocated by the Government under budgetary provisions shall be arranged to be drawn and deposited into the Fund by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. (4)The Commission shall utilize the fund for meeting expenses required in connection with the discharge of its functions under section 9 of the Act and also for meeting objects and the purposes authorized by the Act. (5)All funds received shall be paid into the Commission’s account in the bank/banks and shall not be withdrawn except on presentation of a cheque signed by the officers authorized by the Commission. (5)All funds received shall be paid into the Commission’s account in the bank/banks and shall not be withdrawn except on presentation of a cheque signed by the officers authorized by the Commission. (6) The designated officer shall be responsible for monitoring the proper transactions of receipts and payments on behalf of the Commission.(7) The designated officer shall be responsible to ensure that the amount of cheques/demand drafts deposited in the accredited banks have been timely credited in the account of the Commission and shall also reconcile the receipts and payments account every quarter with them. 8. Mode of authentication of order/decisions.- All the orders, decisions and instruments issued by the Commission shall be authenticated by the signature of the Chairperson, Secretary, or by the signature of any person authorized under the regulations of the Commission. 9. Finance and Accounts.- (1) The Commission shall maintain its accounts on the principle of double entry system in Forms A, B and C. The Commission shall maintain cash book, ledger and shall prepare annual balance sheet and other such relevant and essential financial records as required under the law. (2) The accounts of the Commission shall be authenticated by the Chairperson, the Secretary and the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the Commission. 10. Annual Report.- The Commission shall prepare and submit the annual report to the Government as required under the provision of section 13 of the Act, giving true and full account of the activities undertaken during the previous year, in the format and structure to be specified by the Commission, taking into the consideration the following index/contents:- (a) Introduction. (b) Organization of the Commission.(c) Role and responsibilities of the Commission.(d) Implementation of the Act and orders issued by the Commission thereunder. (e) Penalties imposed and amount recovered from various defaulting institutions. (f) Other observations and recommendations. (g)Accounts of the Commission in brief, showing receipts and expenditure. (h) Annexure. 11. Temporary association of persons with the Commission for particular purpose.- (1) The Commission may associate with itself or invite any person whose assistance or advice it may require in carrying out any of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder. (f) Other observations and recommendations. (g)Accounts of the Commission in brief, showing receipts and expenditure. (h) Annexure. 11. Temporary association of persons with the Commission for particular purpose.- (1) The Commission may associate with itself or invite any person whose assistance or advice it may require in carrying out any of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder. (2) A person associated or invited by the Commission under sub­rule(1), to take part in any meeting of the Commission, shall have no right to vote in the meeting of the Commission.(3) A person associated with or invited by the Commission for the purpose in accordance with sub-rule (1) shall be paid TA / DA and sitting fee / honorarium as per the regulations. 12. Right to Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by the order /decisions of the Commission may file Civil Writ Petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.” 15. On plain language of the preamble of the Act, it is obvious that it is an Act for establishment of the Regulatory Commission and Regulatory mechanism for the purpose of ensuring appropriate standard of admission, teaching, examination, research and protection of interest of students in the private educational institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. As held by the Apex Court, Entry 66 will have to be given its fullest meaning and the widest amplitude and be held to extend to all ancillary and subsidiary matters, which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in them. In the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastva (supra), the Apex Court has had the occasion to deal with some of the matters falling within the ambit of standards of education in an institute or college. In the case of Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (supra), the Apex Court has dealt with the meaning of expression “coordination” in Entry 66 of List I. It held that it does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. Further, it includes power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make “coordination” either impossible or difficult and this power is absolute and unconditional in the absence of any valid compelling reasons. 16.It is, thus, obvious that the matters intended to be covered by the Act of 2010 pertain to subject covered by Entry 66 of List I. The Parliament has exclusive power to enact laws on those matters and including for compliance and adherence of the prescribed standards, by providing for regulatory mechanism therefor. That field is covered by Entry 66 of List I. In that case, the Legislature of the State cannot enact law with regard to those matters and more particularly for securing compliance of standards by establishment of its own Regulatory Commission and Regulatory mechanism in the State. The Legislature of a State can have no legislative competence in that behalf because of the exclusivity of power of the Parliament in that regard. The respondents would, however, contend that the Act is not to provide for standards in institutions for higher education, but it is only to ensure that the standards set by the Central Authorities under the Central Acts are adhered to by the private educational institutions. Counsel for the respondents have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. versus K. Purushotham Reddy and others (supra) to buttress this argument. According to the respondents, the State enactment considered by the Apex Court in that case titled as Andhra Pradesh Council for Higher Education Act, 1988, also provided for similar matters. Yet, the Apex Court has held that Act to be intra vires. According to the respondents, the State enactment considered by the Apex Court in that case titled as Andhra Pradesh Council for Higher Education Act, 1988, also provided for similar matters. Yet, the Apex Court has held that Act to be intra vires. In our view, however, the Apex Court on analysis of the said Act held that the said Act indicated that the powers and functions of the Council created under the Act of 1988 were curtailed in so far as it was expected not only to function in accordance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, but its duty was to assist the Central Commission in respect of determination and maintenance of standards and suggest remedial action for higher education in the State. That the State Council was constituted to advise the Government in matters relating to Higher Education in the State and to oversee its development with prospective planning and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Further, the Council could only forward the programmes of Universities and Colleges to the University Grants Commission alongwith its comments and recommendations. It was for the University Grants Commission to accept those recommendations. On that finding, the Apex Court proceeded to reject the contention that the Council also derived its power to coordinate and determine the standards of institutions of higher education or research or educational institutions including planning and coordination to prepare concerted programmes in the sphere of higher education in the State. The Court, instead, found that the principal duties and functions of the Council were to assist the University Grants Commission in respect of specified matters which were within the domain of the University Grants Commission. In other words, the duties and functions of the Council created under the Andhra Pradesh Act of 1988 were compartmentalised and the Council was expected to act in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Commission from time to time. It could not act on its own and/or at the instance of the State Government in the field of coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education as an independent body. The Court also noted that the said Act also dealt with intermediate education which in no manner was the subject matter of Entry 66 of the Union List. This decision, therefore, is inapposite to the case on hand. The Court also noted that the said Act also dealt with intermediate education which in no manner was the subject matter of Entry 66 of the Union List. This decision, therefore, is inapposite to the case on hand. 17.Inasmuch as, the Act of 2010, under consideration, not only empowers the State Government to establish its own Regulatory Commission for regulating the activities of private educational institutions and also for providing a Regulatory mechanism in the State on matters of standards of education. Section 3 of the Act envisages that the State Regulatory Commission be established for the purpose of providing a regulatory mechanism in the State and for working as an interface between the State Government and the Central Regulatory Bodies, for the purpose of “ensuring” the appropriate standards of admission, teaching, examination, research, extension programme and protection of interest of the students of the private educational institutions. According to the respondents, these were matters ascribable to the power of the Legislature of the State regarding the subject of Universities under Entry 32, List II. This submission does not commend to us. For, the matters referred to in Section 3 of the Act read with the powers and functions of the State Commission in Section 9 of the Act leave no manner of doubt that the same are concerning the standards of education in institutions for higher education. Not only that, the State Commission has been authorized to penalise the Educational Institutions failing to meet the standards laid down. The extent of penalty is specified in Section 11 of the Act. Those are not matters concerning incorporation, regulation and winding up of Universities as such. As regards regulation of Universities, the field would be perceptibly different than the field of coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education. Regulation of Universities would necessarily be limited to matters which are mutually exclusive from the field covered by Entry 66 of the Union List or for that matter, “education” contained in Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. The regulation can be in respect of matters such as the organisational and infrastructure of University, hierarchy of authorities, their composition, powers and functions, officers of the Universities, their appointment etc. and other organisational aspects of the Universities. It would certainly not include the matters covered by List I or for that matter, List III. The regulation can be in respect of matters such as the organisational and infrastructure of University, hierarchy of authorities, their composition, powers and functions, officers of the Universities, their appointment etc. and other organisational aspects of the Universities. It would certainly not include the matters covered by List I or for that matter, List III. The exclusivity of power to legislate in respect of subject matter in List I is bestowed on the Parliament and of List II in the Legislature of the State, respectively. Indeed, the expression “education” appearing in List III is wide but it will have to be understood subject to the fields covered by Entries 63 to 66 of List I and covered by Entry 32 in List II, which is within the exclusive domain of the Parliament and Legislatures of the States, respectively. 18.The respondents relying on the legislative changes to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as a consequence of 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 amending Entry 25 of List III, would contend that the maters now covered under Entry 25 of List III empoweres the Legislature of State to enact law on the matters falling under Section 3 and Section 9 of the Act of 2010. The pith and substance of the matters referred to in Section 3 and Section 9 of the Act of 2010 are ascribable to subject “education” occurring in Entry 25 of List III and since the field was not occupied by the Central Legislature, it was open to the State Legislature to make law on those matters. 19.Having held that the substantive matters covered under Section 3 read with Section 9 are referable to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education, it would be covered by the exclusive field of the Parliament to make law in that regard. The fact that there is no Central Legislation in vogue on those matters will be of no avail. For, the Legislatures of the States have no power to make law on the subject matter falling under Entry 66 of the Union List, whether the Parliament has made law on that subject or otherwise. The fact that there is no Central Legislation in vogue on those matters will be of no avail. For, the Legislatures of the States have no power to make law on the subject matter falling under Entry 66 of the Union List, whether the Parliament has made law on that subject or otherwise. In any case, on comparing the provisions of Sections 3 read with 9 of the Act of 2010 with the Central Legislation i.e. the University Grants Commission Act 1956, there is no manner of doubt that the Parliament has already made law for establishment of Commission under the Central Act, by virtue of Section 4 thereof, which has been invested with powers and functions under Section 12 of the Act of 1956, inter alia, for the promotion and coordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. Similarly, the Rules have been framed under the Act of 1956 titled – The University Grants Commission (Inspection of Universities) Rules 1960; The University Grants Commission (Returns of Information by Universities) Rules, 1979; and the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 on the same subject matter of coordination and determination of standards in educational institutions. If such mechanism is already in place under the Central Act and Rules framed thereunder, the question of requiring a separate law to be made by the State Legislature for ensuring adherence to the standards specified by the Central Legislation does not arise and cannot be countenanced. 20. For the view taken by us, it may not be necessary to dilate on the finer points urged by the petitioners challenging the composition of Commission with reference to Section 4 of the Act of 2010. According to the petitioners, the composition of Commission is of persons who cannot be entrusted with the task of ensuring standards of education in the Private Un-aided Institutions. No doubt, this plea has been refuted by the respondents on the argument that keeping in mind the powers and functions of the Commission, there is no need to involve academicians. As aforesaid, it is not necessary for us to examine this aspect of the matter whilst deciding the question of legislative competence of the Legislature of the State to make law on matters contained therein. As aforesaid, it is not necessary for us to examine this aspect of the matter whilst deciding the question of legislative competence of the Legislature of the State to make law on matters contained therein. Thus, we do not intend to examine the argument of the petitioners about the justness and reasonableness of the composition of the Commission as postulated under Section 4 of the Act of 2010 any further. 21. Argument was also advanced with reference to Section 8 of the Act of 2010, which provides for establishment of a fund by collecting percentage of total fees from the Private Educational Institutions every year, as may be assessed by the Commission, any other grants received from other source, all sums received by way of penalties and loan from the State Government which is repayable within three years. According to the petitioners, collection of fund from the Private Educational Institutions, that too in percentage, is nothing short of collection of tax from the educational institutions. That cannot be permitted nor does the State Legislature has any authority to make law on that subject. The petitioners have relied on the cases of A.N. Parasuraman etc. versus State of Tamil Nadu23 and Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan (supra) that the amount so collected from the Private Educational Institutions is not only extortionate in nature and amount to grabbing of money but also partakes the character of imposition of tax. Further, the provision is arbitrary because it gives unguided discretion to the Commission to collect amount by way of percentage of total fees from Re. 1/- to one percent and moreso, when it is unrelated to the services rendered by the State Regulatory Commission. In any case, there is no question of invoking doctrine of ‘quid pro quo’ as the State’s power to levy fees under Entry 32 read with 66 of State List is only with respect to matters in that List i.e. incorporation, regulation and winding up of Universities. The powers and functions to be exercised by the Commission under the Act of 2010 has nothing to do with that activity. Similarly, the State can levy fees in respect of matters enlisted in List III, to wit, education covered under Entry 25 of List III. None of the matters covered under the Act of 2010 pertain to subject “education” as such, as noted earlier. Similarly, the State can levy fees in respect of matters enlisted in List III, to wit, education covered under Entry 25 of List III. None of the matters covered under the Act of 2010 pertain to subject “education” as such, as noted earlier. As a matter of fact, the Act of 2010 is intended to ensure appropriate standard of admission, teaching, examination, research and protection of interest of students in the Private Educational Institutions. Neither Section 3 nor Section 9 concern with the issue of education as such, but govern the field of standards in institution and compliance thereof. 22. As noted earlier, having found that the purport of the Act of 2010 transcends beyond the power bestowed on the Legislature of the State under Entry 32 of the State List and Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the provision in Section 8 of the Act concerning creation of fund for the Regulatory Commission is beyond legislative competence, as it purports to deal with matters which are ancillary or incidental to Entry 66 of the Union List. 23. Reverting to Section 9 of the Act of 2010, it reiterates the statement made in the preamble that it will be the duty of the Commission to ensure that standards of admission, teaching, examination, research extension programme, qualified teachers and infrastructure are being maintained by the Private Educational Institutions, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Regulatory Bodies of the Central Government or the State Government or by the Central Government to the State Government from time to time. Once again, these are matters which would fall within the ambit of Entry 66 of the Union List and it is only the Parliament which has exclusive and overriding power to make law on that subject. The Legislature of a State cannot create a Regulatory Body of its own by enacting a law purported to have been enacted under Entry 32 of the State List or under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. It has no power to do so. The State Legislature cannot make a law to establish State Regulatory Body with power to determine standards in institutions and to penalise those institutions failing to adhere to the prescribed standards in the guise of strengthening or supplementing the activities of the Central Regulatory Authority established under the central legislation. It has no power to do so. The State Legislature cannot make a law to establish State Regulatory Body with power to determine standards in institutions and to penalise those institutions failing to adhere to the prescribed standards in the guise of strengthening or supplementing the activities of the Central Regulatory Authority established under the central legislation. If the Parliament, so intended, would have itself established State Level Regulatory Bodies to assist the Central Regulatory Body for ensuring compliance of the law made by the Parliament with reference to Entry 66 under the Union List. The second part of sub-section(1) of Section 9 reinforces the argument of the petitioners that the real intention of establishing the State Regulatory Commission is to penalise the Private Educational Institutions and recover huge amount from them in the name of penalty under Section 11 of the Act. Notably, the Central Legislation of 1956 prescribes for levy of penalty only in case of contravention of mandate of Section 22 or 23 of that Act alone. In other words, the impugned State Act of 2010 prescribes for penalty in respect of failure to adhere to the prescribed standards under the Central Legislation, which is, ex facie, without authority to do so. Assuming that the argument of the petitioners that the subject matter of the Act of 2010 is covered by Entry 25 of List III is accepted, then the provision in the shape of Section 11 could not be enacted in absence of entry in List III to legislate on subject of offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in List III, unlike Entry 93 in List I and Entry 64 in List II. 24.As regards the option of winding up of the Institution because of successive failure to abide by the standards, can be resorted to by the State Government by invoking powers under the same Act under which the Private Educational Institution has been established as University. As regards the duty of the Commission envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of ensuring that admissions in the Private Educational Institutions are based on merit achieved in National Common Entrance Test or the State Common Entrance Test or any other test as notified by the State Government also pertains to the subject of standards in institutions as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastva (supra). Preeti Srivastva (supra). In paragraph 36, one of the standards of education noted is the calibre of the students admitted to the institutions, being covered by Entry 66 of the Union List. Therefore, the provision such as sub section (2) of Section 9 of the Act of 2010, could not have been enacted by the State Legislature, being exclusive power of the Parliament. Sub­section (3) of Section 9 obligates the Commission to develop an appropriate mechanism for receipt and redressal of grievances of students and parents and direct the Private Institutions to set up a proper grievance redressal mechanism for redressal of complaints reported to the Commission. Since the substantive provisions could not have been enacted by the State Legislature because the field is covered by Entry 66 of the Union List, the mechanism for redressal of grievance and complaints would also be covered by Entry 66 with regard to those matters being incidental and ancillary thereto. 25.As regards sub-section (4) of Section 9, it envisages that the Commission may conduct inspections of Private Educational Institutions as and when required and may form Expert Committees for the inspection of Private Educational Institutions. The argument of the respondents was that this provision would be covered by Entry 32 of List II being in the nature of regulation of the University. Even this submission does not commend to us, inasmuch as the substantive matters for which inspection is intended to be carried out by the Commission, no legislation could be made by the State Legislature as the same are fully covered by Entry 66 of the Union List. For the same reason, the State Legislature cannot create a State Regulatory Body to carry out inspection with regard to those matters. Sub section (5) of Section 9 would require the Commission to monitor and regulate fees in Private Educational Institutions. By now, it is well established that it is the prerogative of the Private Unaided Educational Institution to provide for its fee structure. The regulation can be only limited to ensuring that such fee structure does not result in profiteering, commercialisation or collection of capitation fee. 26. Suffice it to observe that the State Regulatory Commission has been envisaged with powers in relation to matters which are within the exclusive domain of Entry 66 of the Union List. As a result, the State Legislature is not competent to enact law in that behalf. 26. Suffice it to observe that the State Regulatory Commission has been envisaged with powers in relation to matters which are within the exclusive domain of Entry 66 of the Union List. As a result, the State Legislature is not competent to enact law in that behalf. 27. Section 10 deals with the procedural powers of the Commission. Having held that the substantive provisions of the Act of 2010 are in relation to matters covered by the field under Entry 66 of the Union List, law on that subject or matters ancillary and incidental thereto can be enacted only by the Parliament. 28. Reverting to Section 11 of the Act of 2010 read with Rules 6(a) to 6(h), we find merits in the stand taken by the petitioner that if the Act of 2010 is ascribable to Entry 25 of List III, there is no power with the State Legislature to make a law providing for penalty - assuming that the matters in respect of which the penalty is to be imposed were not covered by Entry 66 of the Union List. We have already rejected the argument of the respondents that the Act of 2010 is intended to cover subject ascribable to Entry 32 of the State List. If the Act was covered by Entry 32 of the State List, only then it would have been possible to justify the provision of penalty by virtue of Entry 64 in the State List. Having held that the pith and substance of the Act of 2010 is to enact law on matters covered under Entry 66 of the Union List, it would necessarily follow that the State Legislature had no authority to enact Section 11 providing for penalties in respect of those matters. 29.Notably, Section 17 of the Act is a sweeping provision. It postulates that the provisions of the Act of 2010 or Rules or orders made thereunder shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained “in any other law” for the time being in force. Ostensibly, this would mean that even if the provisions in the Act of 2010 or Rules or orders made thereunder were to be inconsistent to the law made by the Parliament, the State Act or Rules would prevail. This provision is completely opposed to the mandate of Article 254 of the Constitution. Ostensibly, this would mean that even if the provisions in the Act of 2010 or Rules or orders made thereunder were to be inconsistent to the law made by the Parliament, the State Act or Rules would prevail. This provision is completely opposed to the mandate of Article 254 of the Constitution. Indeed, the learned Advocate General would submit that the expression “in any other law” may be understood as not overriding the provisions of the Central Legislation, but on matters which were covered by Entry 32 of the State List. However, from the analysis already done, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the State Legislature was incompetent to enact law on the subject which was covered by the field occupied by Entry 66 of the Union List. Accordingly, we may have to declare the Act of 2010 ultra vires and void ab initio. 30.Having said this, it is unnecessary to dilate on the alternative submission of the petitioner that the provisions of the Act are unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory for which reason are hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As regards the argument regarding provisions being arbitrary and unreasonable, we have already touched those aspects while dealing with the provisions of the Act, such as, Section 8(a) dealing with recovery of funds from the Private Educational Institutions, 8(d) about the recovery of penalty read with Section 11 of the Act of 2010. 31. As regards the argument of the Act being discriminatory, as it governs only the Private Educational Unaided Institutions, the respondents would contend that it is open to the State Legislature to enact law concerning particular category of Institutions in the State. Further, the fact that there is no specific law on similar lines governing the aided and public institutions does not mean that those Institutions are not regulated in similar manner. Non-adherence to the directions issued by the Central Regulatory Bodies under the Central enactments must be carried out in its letter and spirit by all the Institutions including the aided and public Institutions. As aforesaid, we do not intend to traverse this argument in detail or express any opinion thereon. 32. For the reasons already noted, we are inclined to allow this writ petition and make the same absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b), as prayed for. 33. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds. As aforesaid, we do not intend to traverse this argument in detail or express any opinion thereon. 32. For the reasons already noted, we are inclined to allow this writ petition and make the same absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b), as prayed for. 33. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b) of the writ petition, with costs. Prayer clauses (a) and (b) read thus: “a) issue Writ of Mandamus and/or Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions to the Respondents declaring Himachal Pradesh Private Education Institution (Regulatory Commission) Act, 2010, and the rules made thereunder, as ultra-vires the Constitution of India; b) consequently, declare that the assessment orders, circulars, notices passed by Respondent No.3 are without authority of law and quash the same;”