JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, J. 1. This application is filed by the Petitioner – Lakshmi school seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 21.09.2012 in W.P.No.19744 of 2011. 2. As per the order of the High Court dated 05.10.2010 in W.A.No.2035 of 2010, the Committee gave personal hearing to the Petitioner and passed the order on 03.06.2011, fixing the fee structure for three academic years viz., 2010-11; 2011-12 and 2012-13. Petitioner school is affiliated to Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE). W.P.No.19744 of 2011 was filed by the Petitioner seeking Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the Committee dated 03.06.2011 challenging applicability of Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 to ICSE schools. 3. In W.P.No.15373 of 2011 etc. Batch, by common order dated 21.09.2012 (in which one of us was a member – Justice R.Banumathi), all the Writ Petitions were dismissed. This Court elaborately gone into the question of applicability of Act 22 of 2009 to CBSE/ICSE schools and held that CBSE/ICSE are private schools within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 and that under Section 7 of the Act, the Committee has the power to determine the fee and verify whether the fee collected by CBSE/ICSE schools is in commensurate with the facilities provided. In the Batch since the applicability of the Act 22 of 2009 to CBSE/ICSE schools were mainly challenged, this Court did not go into the question of factual aspects. 4. Mr. T.K. Bhaskar, learned counsel for Petitioner contended that the Committee shall take into consideration the guidelines given by this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch dated 03.05.2012 along with the ICSE norms. It is the contention of Petitioner that earlier they have filed objection before the Committee mainly challenging the applicability of the Act to ICSE schools and not on merits. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, now the Petitioner prays that opportunity be given to them to go before the Committee to put forth their case on factual aspects. 5. Case of Petitioner is that when they have filed objections before the Committee under Section 6(3) of the Act, the Petitioner school mainly raised the question only regarding applicability of the provisions of Act 22 of 2009. 5. Case of Petitioner is that when they have filed objections before the Committee under Section 6(3) of the Act, the Petitioner school mainly raised the question only regarding applicability of the provisions of Act 22 of 2009. They did not furnish the comprehensive details regarding the expenditure of the Petitioner school and therefore, the Committee fixed the fee based on the incomplete materials furnished by the Petitioner school. 6. The issue regarding applicability of Act 22 of 2009 to CBSE/ICSE schools is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Now the Petitioner seeks without prejudice to the contention regarding applicability of Act 22 of 2009 to ICSE schools, now the Petitioner school prays that the matter be remitted back to the Committee for limited purpose of considering the matter afresh on factual aspects and in the light of the guidelines issued in the common order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. Batch. 7. Heard Mr. P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader (Edn.). Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the matters could be remitted back to the Committee for limited purpose of considering the matter afresh on factual aspects for fixing the fee structure in the forthcoming academic years. 8. On behalf of 4th Respondent – Lakshmi School Parents Association, Mr. P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel raised strong objection for remitting the matter back to the Committee for considering the matter afresh on factual aspects. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that three Writ Petitions are pending before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.8340, 8486 and 9241 of 2011 where the Division Bench has granted interim injunction restraining the Petitioner school from collecting excess fee more than the fee fixed by the Committee in any form and inspite of the interim injunction, the Petitioner school is collecting excess fee from the students during the academic year 2012-13. According to learned Senior Counsel, the Petitioner school had already collected excess amount from the students for the academic years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the name of Arogya Welfare Trust and in the name of service provider in different heads and therefore, serious objections are raised for remitting the matter back to the Committee. 9. According to learned Senior Counsel, the Petitioner school had already collected excess amount from the students for the academic years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the name of Arogya Welfare Trust and in the name of service provider in different heads and therefore, serious objections are raised for remitting the matter back to the Committee. 9. Even though Petitioner school had filed the application to modify the order dated 21.09.2012, in effect, Petitioner only seeks to remit the matter back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh on factual aspects and in the light of the guidelines laid down by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 dated 03.05.2012. 10. While disposing of the Writ Petitions, by the common order dated 21.09.2012, this Court has mainly gone into the question of applicability of Act 22 of 2009 to CBSE/ICSE schools and did not go into the factual aspects. The fee fixed by the Committee by its order dated 03.06.2011 is only for three academic years viz., 2010-11; 2011-12 and 2012-13. As per Section 6(5) of the Act, the orders passed by the Committee shall be final and binding on the private school for three academic years. Now we are in the fag end of the academic year 2012-13 and necessarily the fee has to be re-determined for the next three academic years. 11. Earlier, in a batch of Writ Petitions (W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch), the order passed by the Committee headed by Justice K.Raviraja Pandian in respect of State Board and Matriculation Schools were set aside. In the said batch of Writ Petitions, written submission was filed by the learned Advocate General stating that expenses incurred in respect of (i) salary to teaching and non-teaching staff; (ii) employees provident fund; (iiii) contribution to employees state insurance corporation; (iv) gratuity; and such other head shall be considered based on the bills produced. In our earlier order (03.5.2012), we have also referred to the expenditures on administration; other miscellaneous expenses and maintenance, depreciation of building, furniture, fixtures equipments; land and lease rent and other expenses and surplus for development and other expenses that are to be taken into consideration for determining the fee. In our earlier order (03.5.2012), we have also referred to the expenditures on administration; other miscellaneous expenses and maintenance, depreciation of building, furniture, fixtures equipments; land and lease rent and other expenses and surplus for development and other expenses that are to be taken into consideration for determining the fee. Elaborately referring to the written submissions filed by the learned Advocate General and other expenditures, in the order dated 03.5.2012, in Paragraphs 88 to 117, we have formulated certain guidelines for determination of fee structure in respect of unaided non-minority educational institutions. 12. Since the academic year 2012-13 is shortly coming to end and since the fee fixed by the Committee by its order dated 03.06.2011 is only for three academic years viz., 2010-11; 2011-12 and 2012-13, we deem it appropriate to direct the Committee to consider the case of Petitioner school based on the expenditures and the facilities that are available in the Petitioner school only for the forthcoming academic years viz., 201314 etc. and such direction would not in any way infringe the interim order granted in W.P.(MD) Nos.8340, 8486 and 9241 of 2011 pending on the file of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, since the interim order was granted restraining the Petitioner school from collecting excess fee than the fee fixed by the Committee. 13. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that the Committee be directed to consider the matter afresh even in respect of the previous academic years 2010-11; 2011-12 and 2012-13. Because of efflux of time and the previous academic years 2010-11 and 201112 are already over and the academic year 2012-13 is shortly coming to an end, the said request is rejected. 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for 4th Respondent finally made a submission that if this Court permits the Petitioner school to go before the Committee, the 4th Respondent shall also be given an opportunity of hearing before the Committee while determining the fee leviable by the Petitioner school. We are unable to accept such a request of the learned Senior Counsel for 4th Respondent for the following reasons. 15. First of all, Act 22 of 2009 was enacted to regulate the collection of fee by the schools. The various provisions under the said statute contemplates the role of the Government, constitution of the Committee, factors for determination of fee and powers and functions of the Committee. 16. 15. First of all, Act 22 of 2009 was enacted to regulate the collection of fee by the schools. The various provisions under the said statute contemplates the role of the Government, constitution of the Committee, factors for determination of fee and powers and functions of the Committee. 16. Section 3 of the Act stipulates that no Government school or aided school shall collect any fee in excess of the fee fixed by the Government for admission of pupils to any Standard or Course. Sub-clause (2) of Section 3 further contemplates that no fee in excess of the fee determined by the Committee shall be collected for admission of pupils to any Standard or Course. Section 4 contemplates that the Government shall fix the fee for admission of pupils to any Standard or Course. Thus a combined reading of Sections 3 and 4 would only show that it is only the Government which is empowered to fix the fee for admission of students in the school. For the purpose of determination of such fee, the Government shall constitute a Committee under Section 5 consisting of members as contemplated therein. What are all the factors to be considered for determination of the fee by the Committee are all stipulated under Section 6. Therefore, a combined reading of Sections 5 and 6 of Act 22 of 2009 would only show that the Committee on behalf of the Government shall determine the fee leviable by a private school taking into account of the factors viz., the location of the private school, availability of infrastructure; expenditure on administration and maintenance, reasonable surplus required for the growth and development of the private school and other factors as may be prescribed. 17. Apart from those factors, this Court based on the written submission submitted the learned Advocate General on the earlier occasion has issued certain other guidelines for consideration of the Committee for determining the fee leviable by the private school. Therefore, only the Committee has to go into all those aspects and determine the fee. If any assistance is required by the Committee to find out the correctness or otherwise of the materials placed before them with regard to a particular school or schools, the Committee has got power to summon and enforce the attendance of any witness and examine him on oath etc., as empowered under Section 7(4)(i) to (iv) of the Act. If any assistance is required by the Committee to find out the correctness or otherwise of the materials placed before them with regard to a particular school or schools, the Committee has got power to summon and enforce the attendance of any witness and examine him on oath etc., as empowered under Section 7(4)(i) to (iv) of the Act. Therefore, the Committee is fully empowered to ascertain the veracity or correctness of the statement made before it by the school before determining the fee leviable. Only when the school is collecting excess fee over and above the fee determined by the Committee or fixed by the Government as the case may be, the third party's right more, particularly, the right of a Parent Association like that of the 4th Respondent arises for making a complaint under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act to the Committee as against such excess fee collection. Therefore, such right to make complaint against collection of excess fee cannot be equated with or construed as a right to participate in the fee determination process by the Committee. In fact, it is a matter between the Government/Committee and the school to arrive at a reasonable fee leviable by a private school. If the Parent Teachers' Association like that of the 4th Respondent is permitted to take part in such process, it would only open a flood gate and would not lead to any finality. Each and every parent or an Association may have their own views in respect of the collection of fees. That is why the Government has taken such responsibility to fix the reasonable fees for admission of the pupils in the school as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act. 18. Sub-clause (4) of Section 6 contemplates that the Committee shall consider the objection of the school and pass orders within 30 days from the date of receipt of such decision. Nowhere under the said provision of law, any other person, than the school was given an opportunity to raise objection. When that being the legal position, the 4th Respondent cannot be permitted to participate in the fee determination process before the Committee. Nowhere under the said provision of law, any other person, than the school was given an opportunity to raise objection. When that being the legal position, the 4th Respondent cannot be permitted to participate in the fee determination process before the Committee. As already stated when their right to agitate against collection of fees over and above the fee fixed by the Government is protected under Section 7(1)(b) of the said Act, the 4th Respondent cannot have any grievance at this stage and the request of the 4th Respondent to go before the Committee is rejected. 19. In the result, M.P.No.3 of 2012 is disposed of requesting the Committee to consider and determine the fee structure for the academic year 2013-14 etc., without prejudice to the contention of Petitioner school regarding applicability of Act 22 of 2009. The Committee shall afford opportunity to the Petitioner school and fix the fee structure for the academic years 2013-2014 etc. in the light of the factors in Section 6 of the Act and various guidelines issued in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch (03.05.2012) and W.P.No.32053 of 2012 (22.1.2013). No costs. It is made clear that insofar as the present academic year 2012-13, the Petitioner school shall not collect excess fee over and above the fee fixed by the Committee in its order dated 03.06.2012.