JUDGMENT M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This Public Interest Litigation (herein after referred to as PIL) has been filed by an 80 years old freedom fighter, residing in Pune district. By this PIL, petitioner seeks a direction that the fees fixed by respondent No.2 – Shikshan Shulka Samiti (herein after referred to as Samiti) for Academic Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 in respect of following four institutions run by respondent No.3-Mumbai Education Trust ( herein after referred to as MET-Trust):- (i) MET Institute of Engineering, Nashik (ii) MET Institute of Polytechnic, Nashik (iii) MET Institute of Management, and (iv) MET Institute of Pharmacy, Nashik. be reworked so as to compute the correct fee chargeable by each of the four Institutions from its students. Further, the excess amount received by the above four professional institutions as fees from its students as determined on the re-computation of correct fees, be refunded. The basis of the petitioner's case is that by manipulating its accounts, the aforesaid four Institutions belonging to respondent No.3-MET-Trust have got fixed higher fees by respondent No.2Samiti to the prejudice of the Student Community. It is also alleged that a portion of fees charged to Backward Caste Students are reimbursed by the State Government, thus not only resulting in loss to exchequer but allowing MET-Trust to illegally profiteer. 2. Before considering the present PIL, it would be necessary to describe the array of parties before us. The petitioner is an 80 years old freedom fighter, who claims to have interest in student welfare and has filed the PIL to save hands of the educational institutions. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 is the Samiti i.e. the Fee Fixing Committee presided over by a former Judge of this Court. Respondent No.3 Mumbai Educational Trust (MET-Trust) is a Public Trust, inter alia running and managing the four professional training institutions referred to herein above at Nashik. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 are Trustees of Respondent No.3-MET-Trust. Respondent No.9 is the Charity Commissioner and Respondent No.10 is Social Welfare Department of State of Maharashtra. 3. The respondent No.2-Samiti was set up by the respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Another v/s. State of Karnataka and Others 2003(6) SCC 537 to monitor the fee structure inter alia of professional colleges in State of Maharashtra. 3. The respondent No.2-Samiti was set up by the respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Another v/s. State of Karnataka and Others 2003(6) SCC 537 to monitor the fee structure inter alia of professional colleges in State of Maharashtra. The scope of the functions of fee fixation committee has been further explained in P. A. Inamdar & Others v/s. State of Maharashtra and Others 2005(6) SCC 697. The Committees like respondent No.2-Samitis were as per the directions of the Supreme Court to be a temporary measure till such time as the relevant government sets up a competent authority to oversee the fixation of fees by educational institutions. 4. The respondent No.2-Samiti which is presided over by a former Judge of this Court is, inter alia, engaged in fixing fees of educational institutions in unaided professional institutions. Although in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in the above decisions, a private unaided educational institution is free to decide its fee structure, the same is subject to being regulated by respondent No.2-Samiti so as to prevent profiteering and charging of capitation fees. For the aforesaid purposes, the respondent No.2-Samiti is required to go into accounts, plans and budgets of individual institutions for the purpose of determining an ideal and reasonable fee structure for the institution. The decision of the respondent No.2-Samiti being quasi-judicial in nature, is subject to judicial review. 5. In brief, it is the petitioner's case that consequent to the Apex Court's decision referred to herein above, respondent No2-Samiti has been constituted for the purpose of fixing the fees, inter alia, of unaided professional educational institutions. The mandate of the respondent No.2-Samiti as directed by the Apex Court is to ensure that there is no charging of capitation fees and also no profiteering by unaided professional educational institutions. However, at the same time, respondent No.2-Samiti must ensure that there is a reasonable surplus available to the educational institutions for the furtherance of its objects. It is the case of the petitioner that for the academic years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the four institutions referred to herein above had submitted its Income and Expenditure Account and Balance sheet to the respondent No.2-Samiti which were manipulated so as to fix higher fees. It is the case of the petitioner that for the academic years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the four institutions referred to herein above had submitted its Income and Expenditure Account and Balance sheet to the respondent No.2-Samiti which were manipulated so as to fix higher fees. According to the petitioner, the amounts shown as expenditure by the four institutions in its Income and Expenditure Accounts were not incurred in running of the institutions or in imparting education to the students but merely shown to enable fixing of higher fees to the detriment of the students committee. In particular, it is the petitioner's case before us that for the academic years 2010-11 and 2011-12, all the four aforementioned institutions have shown Technology Development Fund (Provisions) and the Student Activity Fund (Provisions) as an expenditure in its Income & Expenditure Account, when the same was not expended. This according to the petitioner is evident from the fact that the amount shown as expended/ incurred was being added to the reserve account in the balance sheet under the head 'Technology Development Fund' and 'Student Activity Fund' on year-to-year basis. During the course of the hearing, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 27 January 2014 bringing on record the fact that the aforesaid information regarding the Income Expenditure account and the Balance sheet submitted by the four institutions for the Academic Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 to the respondent No.2-Samiti was obtained by making an application to the Information Officer of respondent No.2-Samiti on 19 October 2011 under the Right to Information Act 2005. 6. On obtaining the above information, the petitioner on 12 March 2012 addressed a communication to the respondent No.2-Samiti, pointing out that the fees fixed for the Academic Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 by respondent No.2-Samiti was not proper in view of the incorrect particulars filed by the four institutions run by respondent No.3-MET-Trust. However, there was no response to the petitioner from respondent No.2-Samiti till the filing of this petition on 28 March 2012. However, in the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2-Samiti, it appears that respondent No.2-Samiti had in its meeting held on 22 March 2012 taken on record the complaint of the petitioner for consideration as under:- “(1) Erroneous figures – the expenses were included which were not made for the students given in the proposals submitted for approval of fees and got the fees approved on the basis. (2) The institute has collected excess fees than what were approved by the Samiti. (3) The fee regarding reservation category was received from the Government and at the same time it was also recovered m those students. Thereby those colleges have cheated and committed fraud upon the State Government as well as the Samiti and these students. It is not possible to entertain such complaint for us. The fees of these institutions are already approved and declared. If there is any grievance then students/parents or the institute can file a revision before the Samiti. In case of No.3 Pratishthan may pursue the matter with the State Government or the Social Welfare Department or with the Higher and Technical Education Department or in any other forum as advised as this does not fall within our jurisdiction. Office to inform.” Therefore after recording the complaint, the respondent No.2-S. Samiti refused to entertain the complaint on the ground that the only person who can have grievance of the fees is students and/or their parents and/or the concerned educational institution. Thus, according to the respondent No.2-Samiti, the petitioner has no locus to file an application for revision before respondent No.2-Samiti. 7. It was further pointed out that in terms of the Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated 24 September 2003, it was obligatory upon the respondent No.2Samiti to correct its mistakes, if any, in fixing of fees of educational institutions. In particular, attention was drawn to paragraph 4 (7) of the above State Government Resolution dated 24 September 2003 which reads as under:- “(7) If any complaint is received regarding difference in the information made available by the Institute while certifying the fee and in the actual state of affairs noticed in the College, to carry out actual inspection and check and make necessary modifications in the same. However, if the complaint is to be redressed, the right will remain with the Government.” 8. In spite of the aforesaid obligations, the respondent No.2-Samiti failed to even, prima facie, consider the complaint filed by the petitioner by dismissing it at the very threshold on ground of locus. This according to the petitioner, results in injustice to the students community as none of the students and/or their parents studying in the institutions are in a position to challenge the fraudulent action on the part of four educational institutions being run by respondent No.3-MET-Trust. This according to the petitioner, results in injustice to the students community as none of the students and/or their parents studying in the institutions are in a position to challenge the fraudulent action on the part of four educational institutions being run by respondent No.3-MET-Trust. Besides, the State Exchequer was also at loss in view of it making a grant of 50% and 100% of fees chargeable in respect of student from backward community and SC/ Tribal candidates respectively. In fact, specific attention was drawn to the affidavit filed by the four educational institutions at the time of forwarding its proposal to respondent No.2-Samiti for fixing of fees structure that in case its statements are found to be false and/or misleading, then they shall have no objection for reduction of fees by 50% of that fixed by respondent No.2-Samiti. 9. At this stage, it may be pointed out that though respondent No.8 is described in the petition as a trustee of respondent No.3-MET-Trust, the same has been denied by respondent No.8 in his affidavit dated 25 October 2012. The respondent No.8 specifically stated in his above affidavit that by letter dated 1 March 2012, he was informed that he ceases to be trustee of respondent No.3-MET-Trust. The aforesaid removal of respondent No.8 is being challenged by him before the appropriate authorities. However, during hearing before us, he appeared to support the petitioner's case and prayed that appropriate action be taken, if higher fees have been charged. In fact, the respondent No.8 very vehemently supported the case of the petitioner during the hearing before us. 10. On the other hand, the preliminary objection raised by respondent No.3-MET-Trust is that the present petition be dismissed as it is not genuine Public Interest Litigation. It is submitted that the present PIL is motivated by respondent No.8 and filed at his behest. This is evident from the fact that respondent No.8 was removed as a trustee of respondent No.3-MET-Trust on 1 March 2012 and the instant petition was filed on 28 March 2012. In fact, the aforesaid allegation has been made by respondent No.7 in his affidavit dated 28 February 2012 and as the same is not denied by the petitioner by filing any affidavit in rejoinder, must be accepted. 11. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner resided in Pune District and is not concerned with the activities of the institutions at Nashik. 11. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner resided in Pune District and is not concerned with the activities of the institutions at Nashik. Moreover, though the petitioner is a senior citizen and has done work in public interest, there is no evidence of him, having done any activity in the filed area of charging fees by the unaided professional educational institutions. Besides, out of total number out of 2500 educational institutions whose fees are fixed, how and why did the petitioner come to the conclusion that the fees charged by the four educational institutions run by the MET-Trust requires examination. 12. On the aforesaid facts, the petitioner invites our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in ArunkumarAgarwal v/s. Union of India and Others (2) SCC 609 rendered on 1 November 2013 wherein the Supreme Court inter alia observed that the first requirement to maintain a public interest litigation is the utmost good faith on the part of petitioner. Thus, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to point out in the petition as to the circumstances in which he realized that four educational institutions referred to herein above were charging more fees than they were otherwise entitled to by inflating its expenditure as shown to the respondent No.2-Samiti. 13. In particular, attention was also drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v/s. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others 2010 (3) SCC 402 wherein the earlier decision in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v/s. Prem Chandra Mishra 2007 (14) SCC 281 was quoted with approval where the Supreme Court observed that ' behind the beautiful veil of PIL, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. The Court should ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the Court.' The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case at paragraph 181 laid down the following eight guidelines for the purpose of the Court's entertaining the PIL:- “181: In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:- “(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Court who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busy bodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.” 14. Though the date of removal of respondent No.8 as a trustee of respondent No.3-MET-Trust on 1 March 2012 and filing of this PIL on 28 March 2012 may, at first blush create a doubt that the PIL may have been filed on the instance of respondent No.8 but the fact that the petitioner is an 80 year old freedom fighter has submitted his query under the RTI Act regarding the accounts of respondent No.3-MET-Trust, much earlier on 19 October 2011 has dissuaded us from taking that view. Therefore in the circumstances, it may not be fair to throw a petition out on a mere suspicion at the threshold without examining the prima facie merits of the submission particularly having regard to the stand of respondent No.2-Samiti discussed hereinafter. 15. Therefore in the circumstances, it may not be fair to throw a petition out on a mere suspicion at the threshold without examining the prima facie merits of the submission particularly having regard to the stand of respondent No.2-Samiti discussed hereinafter. 15. We find that respondent No.2-Samiti has neglected its responsibility of looking into the complaint filed by a member of the general public with regard to the fixation of the fees on the ground that the only person who can file a such complaint is the student and/or his/her parents. The respondent No.2-Samiti failed to appreciate that a student of the institution is so situated that it would be impossible for him to challenge the fees charged by the institution and at the same time, attend the institution to pursue his academic career. The difficulties such a student would undergo in the educational institution may not be apparent but the undercurrent in the relationship as also the unstated hardship he would face can be imagined. The pressure on such a student would be subtle but effective to ruin his career. Not that every institution may adopt a revengeful attitude but no student can take a risk. Therefore in these circumstances, it may be necessary for respondent No.2 – Samiti to have at least prima facie examined the complaint of the petitioner and if there was any substance in the same, to proceed with the due investigation into the facts and figures submitted by four unaided professional educational institutions for fixing of their fees for academic years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 16. The genesis of PIL is to ensure that justice become available to all sections of the Society i.e. poor and marginalized as also to persons who are so situated that they cannot of their own take on the mite of an institution which is exploiting them. In such cases, it is open to the public spirited citizens to file a PIL so as to address the wrongs committed as in this case to the student community. 17. On merits, the showing of the amount of provisions/ reserve as expenditure does warrant making at least a preliminary enquiry to find out whether in fact it so or not. It cannot be said that the issue raised by the petitioner is wholly without substance. The merits of it can only be determined on detailed examination of the accounts. 18. On merits, the showing of the amount of provisions/ reserve as expenditure does warrant making at least a preliminary enquiry to find out whether in fact it so or not. It cannot be said that the issue raised by the petitioner is wholly without substance. The merits of it can only be determined on detailed examination of the accounts. 18. This prima facie examination was necessary as the original applications for fixing the fees filed by the four unaided professional educational institutions were not properly verified and examined before fixation of fees which is evident from the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2 – Samiti wherein in paragraph 7, it has been stated that:- “…. …... a genuine practical difficulty is that as per the Government Resolution dated 24-09-2003 whereby the Respondent No.2 came to be constituted, it has been provided that there shall not be more than 05 members apart from President in the committee viz. the Respondent No.2. I say that at the relevant time when fees of the said institutions came to be approved by the Respondent No.2, there was one Chartered Accountant who was working on a part-time basis and staff of 03 persons with B.Com qualification. I further say that every year proposals for approval of fees from approximately 2500 colleges are required to be seen and thereafter the same are if necessary altered by Respondent No.2 as per its prevailing norms which are applicable to all the institutes. I say that it is pertinent to note that each proposal runs into 500 pages approximately. I say that under such circumstances, possibility of unintentional human errors/ mistakes cannot be ruled out.” (emphasis supplied) The above disclosure/ tacit admission by respondent No.2-Samiti in its affidavit dated 29 January 2013 of insufficient/ inappropriate examination of application for fixation of fees by it is on account of lack of infrastructure. Thus, it appears that while fixing the fees, proper care has not been taken and when mistakes are pointed out they seek to adopt an ostrich like attitude. 19. Thus, it appears that while fixing the fees, proper care has not been taken and when mistakes are pointed out they seek to adopt an ostrich like attitude. 19. In the circumstances, we direct the respondent No.2-Samiti to examine the complaint dated 12 March 2012 of the petitioner and if, prima facie, respondent No.2-Samiti find that the figures submitted by four unaided professional educational institutions require further investigation, then that investigation should be carried out by respondent No.2Samiti As this PIL pertains to Academic Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the respondent No.2-Samiti shall decide upon the application dated 12 March 2012 of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from today. 20. Subject to above directions, this PIL is disposed of with no order as to costs.