JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. What the petitioner shows in the singular facts of this case can at best be termed a conundrum. The petitioner runs a Self Financing Law College, the details of which we will come to presently, and in order to have its fee structure fixed, it approached the Government, which concededly is the sole authority to do so, but were asked by it to approach the Fee Regulatory Committee (FRC in short) constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006. The FRC finally fixed the fee structure, which the petitioner says was under the express and unequivocal request of the Government but the position taken by the Government and interestingly even by the FRC now, is that since the College of the petitioner is not the one coming under the definitional compass of Section 2(r) of the Act,, the orders and proceedings of the FRC are not applicable to the college. 2. The petitioner impugns this stand of the Government and our consideration is called to whether the FRC constituted under the Act, can obtain jurisdiction over Law colleges and other colleges which do not come under the statutory umbra of the Act. 3. A brief narrative of the facts first will be in order. 4. The petitioner, which is called “Bhavan's N.A. Palkhivala Academy for Advanced Legal Studies and Research,” is stated to be a Self-Financing Law College established and run by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and consecrated to the memory of the legendary jurist Sri. N.A. Palkhivala, who had served as the Vice President of the Vidhya Bhavan for several years. 5. The petitioner says that as per the order issued by the Govt. of Kerala, dated 08.06.2012, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.P1, they were granted administrative sanction to start a new Self Financing College to commence courses in the academic year 2012-13 on certain conditions. One of the conditions attached to the administrative sanction was that the courses to be commenced by the petitioner shall be approved by the Bar Council of India. The petitioner asserts that they have so obtained the approval of the Bar Council of India subsequently. One of the conditions attached to the administrative sanction was that the courses to be commenced by the petitioner shall be approved by the Bar Council of India. The petitioner asserts that they have so obtained the approval of the Bar Council of India subsequently. As regards the fees to be collected by the petitioner college is concerned, Clause 4 of Ext.P1 provides that it shall be as determined by the Government from time to time or as per the conditions of the agreement executed by the Management with the Government. The petitioner says that even though they began their academic functioning pursuant to Ext.P1, the Government have not taken any steps, to fix the fees with respect to the students admitted to both the three year LL.B. Course and five year LL.B. Course and therefore, that they were constrained to prefer Ext.P2 representation before the Government, proposing a fee of Rs.21,750/- per semester for the 3 year Course and Rs.42,000/-per semester for the 5 year Course, and requesting that they be permitted to collect such amounts as fees from the students to be admitted. The petitioner asserts that since the Government did not have the requisite mechanism to evaluate the quantum of fees to be fixed for its college, they were directed to place a copy of Ext.P2 before the first respondent - Fee Regulatory Committee for professional Colleges (hereinafter referred to as 'FRC'), which is a committee constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 [herein after referred to as the 'Act'] so as to enable for the Committee to arrive at the appropriate and apposite fee structure for the college. As per the pleadings on record, after the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 application before the FRC, a decision was taken by it, on 05.09.2013, to cause an inspection of the college and its infrastructural and academic facilities as a prelude to the fixation of the fee structure for the 5 year LLB Course. While, the fee proposed by the petitioner in Ext.P2 relating to the 3 year LL.B Course was approved. While, the fee proposed by the petitioner in Ext.P2 relating to the 3 year LL.B Course was approved. The said order further has recorded that since the inspection would take some time to complete, the petitioner college was authorised to provisionally collect Rs.43000/- from the students of the 5 year Course and to commence the admission process, pending a final decision on the fee structure. 6. This decision in Ext. P3 led to Ext.P4 minutes being recorded in the joint meeting of the ASC (Admission Supervisory Committee) and the FRC, which was held on 11.07.2014, wherein it was resolved that an inspection team consisting of : (i) a nominee from Govt. Law College, Calicut (ii) a nominee from Govt. Law College, Ernakulam and (iii) a nominee from NUALS, Cochin shall be constituted and that the Addl. Chief Secretary, who is also the Principal Secretary of the Higher Education Department, would take necessary steps to have an apposite Government order issued to constitute the above team, so as to facilitate the inspection of the petitioner's college within one month from the date on which the said minutes was recorded. 7. The Government of Kerala, thereafter, based on Ext.P4, issued Ext.P5 order, dated 30.08.2014, constituting a Committee to inspect the petitioner's college with the three persons mentioned therein. We notice that the three persons shown in Ext.P5 are all Associate Professors of various colleges mentioned in Ext.P4 minutes. Even though such an inspection team was constituted, we notice that the FRC issued an order, dated 02.09.2014, a copy of which has been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P6, whereby it decided to “extend the existing fee structure for the academic year 2014-15 also” (which is the provisional fees sanctioned by the FRC in Ext. P2 order) and the petitioner college was authorised to collect such fees for that year. Since the Committee was, for unspecified reasons, not in a position to inspect the premises, the Government thereafter issued an order, dated 30.10.2014, a copy of which has been produced and marked along with the writ petition as Ext.P7, nominating the Special Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department as the Convenor of the Committee, constituted as per Ext.P5 order mentioned above, to cause inspection of the petitioner's college so as to finalise the tuition fee per semester/annum for the 5 year course. As is luculent from it, Ext.P7 order is, in fact, a modification of Ext.P5 order to the extent mentioned therein. 8. The petitioner's allegation in the writ petition appears to be that even after these processes were undertaken and even though the Committee had inspected its college in terms of the Government Order referred to above, no action was taken by the respondent to fix the fees and that this has consequently placed it in a very piquant situation, wherein the students are virtually allowed to study without being charged any fee and the apprehension stated before us, as is voiced by them through their learned counsel, is that the students would now complete their course and it would thus axiomatically become impossible for the petitioner college to recover the legitimate fees from such students. 9. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner at a time when no decision has been taken by the respondent on Ext.P2 and therefore, the prayers shown in the writ petition are primarily for directions to the respondent to approve and finalise the proposed Fee structure shown therein without any further delay. 10. We have heard Mr. Shyam Padman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel for the ASC and Mr. Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader. 11. Shri Shyam Padman opened his submissions by saying that pending this writ petition, certain developments have taken place and he points out that the FRC has subsequently, on 16.05.2017, issued a final order on Ext.P2 request made by the petitioner, approving the fee structure with respect to the college. He says that a copy of the said order has been placed on record as Ext.P19. According to him, since the first respondent FRC has now issued Ext.P19 order, nothing remains in the writ petition except that the said order be notified in the website of the FRC, so as to enable the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the prospectus to be published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations along with the approved fee structure, so as to make it applicable to the present students of the college and to future admissions. 12. Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent-FRC, however contests the submission of Shri Shyam Padman on a completely and tangentially different assertion. 12. Smt. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent-FRC, however contests the submission of Shri Shyam Padman on a completely and tangentially different assertion. According to her, even though the FRC has issued Ext.P19 order, it is doubtful whether the same could be made applicable to the petitioner, since according to her, the FRC does not have any jurisdiction to issue such orders in the case of colleges and institutions, which are not governed by the Act. She refers to Section 2(r) of the Act and contends that the Law Colleges and Institutions offering legal studies do not come within the purlieu of the definition of “Professional College or Institution” there under. 13. The learned Government Pleader submits that even though the Government had initially issued orders appointing the Committee for the purpose of inspection of the petitioner's college, it had thereafter, on 31.07.2015, issued a Government Order, No. G.O(Rt)No.1966/2015/H.Edn, wherein the fee structure with respect to all the law Colleges in Kerala has been fixed and notified. His contention, therefore, is that the petitioner cannot get any advantage out of Ext.P19 order now passed by the FRC, since, adopting the submissions of Smt. Mary Benjamin afore, the FRC does not obtain the competence to issue such orders in the case of institutions, which do not come within the sweep of Section 2(r) of the Act. 14. We have considered the syllogistic submissions of the various learned counsel on either side as above. It perhaps is true that the petitioner's college cannot be seen to be one that would come within the definitional compass of Section 2(r) of the Act. This is because, as per the said provision, only colleges and institutions imparting Technical Education, like Engineering and Technology, Medicine and Dentistry would come within its ambit or any other course which are notified by the Government in the Gazette published. We do not obtain information, from the pleadings available in this writ petition, as to whether the petitioner's college has the benefit of such a notification by the Government in the Gazette, bringing it under the governing umbra of Section 2(r) of the Act. We, therefore, have to take it that the petitioner's college do not come within the definition of “Professional College or institution” under Section 2(r) of the Act. 15. We, therefore, have to take it that the petitioner's college do not come within the definition of “Professional College or institution” under Section 2(r) of the Act. 15. That being so, the question that immediately springs for our consideration is whether the FRC would obtain the jurisdiction and competence to issue Ext.P19 order, as it has now done. At first blush, the answer to this may appear to be very obvious and to be to the negative. However, the various events that have taken place in this case and recorded by us as above, would make us believe that the Government had, in fact, authorised the FRC to consider and assess the request of the petitioner for its fee fixation in terms of the proposals made in Ext.P2 representation. We say this because Ext.P2 request was made by the petitioner before the Government in the year 2012. If the Government thought that Ext.P2 ought not to have been processed or considered by the FRC, it could have simply left the matter rest there without passing any further orders constituting an inspection committee etc. as asked for by it. However, contrary to this, when the FRC, in terms of its decision recorded in Ext.P3 minutes, requested the Government to constitute a Committee for the purpose of inspection of the petitioner's college and when it, as per its Ext.P4 subsequent minutes, further requested the Government to constitute the committee in a particular manner by including the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government as its convenor, the Government acceded promptly to this and issued orders, in terms of such requests of the FRC, to constitute the said committee for inspection. Obviously, therefore, if the Government did not want to proceed further with the fee assessment mechanism under the FRC, it could have refused to pass Orders and the matter would have been simply ended there. 16. To reiterate the factional events, the Government followed up the minutes, recorded in Ext.P4 by the FRC, by issuing Exts.P5 and P7 orders, wherein persons were nominated from the various Law Colleges to be the members of the Committee and in fact, in Ext.P7, the Special Secretary to the Government was nominated to be the Convenor of the said Committee. To reiterate the factional events, the Government followed up the minutes, recorded in Ext.P4 by the FRC, by issuing Exts.P5 and P7 orders, wherein persons were nominated from the various Law Colleges to be the members of the Committee and in fact, in Ext.P7, the Special Secretary to the Government was nominated to be the Convenor of the said Committee. This can only indicate unequivocally that the Government was using the mechanism of the FRC with respect to the petitioner's request for fee fixation as voiced in Ext.P2, presumably since that the Government do not have the machinery or expertise to independently assess the request made by the petitioner for the fixation of the particular fee structure. We further notice from the pleadings on record that the Special Secretary to Government, who was appointed as Convenor of the Committee as per Ext.P7 order had visited the petitioner's college on 07.03.2015 and that it was followed by a further inspection by the full committee of the persons, included as per Ext.P5 Government Order, on 07.08.2015. 17. It is pertinent here that when the inspection was so conducted on 07.08.2015, the Government Order referred to by the learned Government Pleader viz., the Government Order dated 31.07.2015 fixing the fee for other colleges had already been brought into effect. It is inescapable, therefore, that if the Government intended to have that order applicable to the petitioner also, it is obvious that it would not have allowed the inspection of the petitioner college by the Committee constituted by it under Exts.P5 and P7 orders. We, therefore, are compelled to arrive at an inference that the conduct of the Government would establish that its intention was to requisition the competence and expertise of the FRC, though the FRC may not otherwise obtain the legal jurisdiction to do so, to assess the petitioner's infrastructure and other credentials, so as to fix the fees, while acting on its request under Ext.P2. 18. When the Government has itself allowed the agency of the FRC to involve in this matter and since the Government itself has constituted a Committee to cause the inspection of the petitioner's college under the aegis of the FRC, we are certain in our mind that it will be completely impermissible for them now to turn around and say that the orders and actions of the FRC are illegal and without jurisdiction. We are firm in our mind that this submission made on behalf of the Government of Kerala is wholly devoid of bonafides or merit and that it thus cannot obtain forensic support. 19. That being said, we have also examined Ext.P19 order issued by the FRC. The entire action and the orders issued by the Committee and the Government are sequentially described therein. The FRC records in Ext.P19 that the report of the inspection committee, constituted by the Government, was forwarded to it on 03.09.2015. The FRC, at that point of time, as is clear from Ext.P19, thought that more materials were necessary for regulating the fee structure and it had, therefore, by letter dated 23.11.2015, directed the petitioner to produce certain documents before it. It thereafter, authorised Shri Suresh Babu, Chartered Accountant, also a member of the FRC, to go through the documents and materials produced before the committee so as to enable him to scrutinise it on its fiscal and financial criterion and to submit a report. Such report was called for with respect only to the 5 year Course since, it appears that the Principal of the petitioner college on 02/03/2017 had informed the FRC that they had stopped the three year LLB Course. As is also discernible from Ext.P19 order, Shri Suresh Babu submitted a report before the FRC on 05.05.2017 and that it was taking into account his report that the Committee decided to fix the fee for Five year BBA LLB Course for the academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15 at Rs.20,000/- per semester and for the three years from the academic year 2015-16 onwards at Rs.22,500/- per semester by adding 12.5% WPI for two years from 2015-16 for the next three academic years. 20. The fee structure with respect to the college has been appended to Ext.P19 order as an appendix, which contains all the categories of charges including tuition fee and admission fee that can be charged by the petitioner college. We notice that the petitioner has placed on record a document marked as Ext.P20, which is the tabulation made by them, which, we are aware, has not been subjected to audit, showing the amounts as being due from each of the student, who were admitted on merit, going by the fee structure fixed by the FRC in Ext.P19 order. 21. We notice that the petitioner has placed on record a document marked as Ext.P20, which is the tabulation made by them, which, we are aware, has not been subjected to audit, showing the amounts as being due from each of the student, who were admitted on merit, going by the fee structure fixed by the FRC in Ext.P19 order. 21. From what we have seen from the aforementioned march of events, the solitary question that survives for our consideration is as to whether the fee structure fixed through Ext.P19 order can be now ordered to apply to the petitioner college. We are certainly aware that, going by the specific provisions of the Act, the petitioner's college would not come within the ambit of Section 2(r) of the Act. However, this is not a case where the FRC had initiated any proceedings under the provisions of the Act suo motu, as in the case of colleges which are under its administrative ambit or where the petitioner college had invoked its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act. On the contrary, the conceded facts would take it beyond doubt that it is in fact the Government which had asked the petitioner to approach the FRC, by preferring a copy of Ext.P2 representation and that it was in fact the Government which had regularised the services of the FRC for fixing the fee structure. It is also beyond doubt that as per the applicable prospectus, it is only the Government which is authorised to fix the fee. The petitioner, as we have seen from the pleadings, had thus approached the government through Ext.P2 representation and it was then the obligation of the government to have done so. Obviously it was since that the government did not have the requisite apparatus or mechanism, to fix the fee structure for the petitioner, after on evaluation of its infrastructural and academic facilities, that it had requested the assistance of the FRC in doing so, presumably because it is vested with such jurisdiction under the terms of the Act to do so with respect to the institutions and the colleges under it and therefore being undeniably equipped with the expertise in such matters. It is indubitable that it was only recoginising this expertise that the Government had asked the petitioner to approach the FRC; had thereafter constituted a committee; then allowed the said committee to inspect the premises and finally had forwarded its report to the FRC for further action. 22. All these concatenated actions at the instance of the Government would only lead to the inviolable inference that the Government wanted the FRC to act for fixation of the fee of the petitioner's college in terms of Ext.P2 request and that it had expressly conceded and approbated to such actions at the hands of the said committee. It cannot, therefore, now turn around and reprobate from the inspection report or the action and orders taken and issued by the FRC for the ostensible reason that it had no statutory jurisdiction to deal, in any manner, with the institutions or colleges that do not fall within the perimeters of the definition contained in Section 2(r) of the Act. 23. As regards the submission of the FRC that it is not sure whether Ext.P19 would apply to the college concerned, we are at loss to understand the true import of this submission because, obviously, the Committee had acted as per the express request and concurrence of the government and after having done so, it is unnecessary for them to feel that their report is meaningless. We think that that FRC has voiced this concern because of its suspicion whether Ext.P19 can be legally applied to the petitioner college under the terms and provisions of the Act. The suspicion is completely without reason, because the FRC ought to know that their order is not a statutory one, issued under the provisions of the Act, but one that has been issued under the explicit requisition of the government, since it had the expertise to do so, and thus making it a Governmental act. From that view, even though Ext.P19 may not be a statutory order, with the support of the provisions of the Act, it can nevertheless not be jettisoned by the government for such reason, since the FRC was only acting under the delegation of the government and not under the provisions of the Act, to only recommend the apposite fee structure to the Government with respect to the petitioner college. Of course, it would certainly be available to the government to modify the fee structure suggested by the FRC, since it can only be seen to be a recommendation of a fact finding and evaluating authority, to fix the fee structure, since going by the prospectus the Government is the only Agency that can fix the fee structure finally. 24. In this case, we, however, do not see that the Government has in any manner modified the fee structure now fixed by the FRC, thus inferentially indicating that it has also accepted it to be proper and credible. Further the Government has not placed before us any objection against the fee structure appended to Ext.P19 order as being, in any manner, excessive, capricious or unconscionable, and we, therefore, see no reason why its terms should not be made applicable to the petitioner forthwith. This is more so because, as has been repeatedly urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shyam Padman, the college has been accommodating the students without charging fees and the amount that are due from them, assuming Ext.P20 to be correct, would go into a large figure. We, therefore, are certainly of the view that it would not be in the interests of either the college, the students or anyone else to cause any further delay in the fixation of fee with respect to the college. 25. Resultantly, in the conspectus of our holdings above, we allow this writ petition directing the Government to issue necessary orders to effectuate the terms of Ext.P19 order issued by the FRC, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner would, thereafter, be entitled to charge and recover such amounts as fees from the students strictly in terms of the orders to be issued by the Government and any violation of its terms would visit them with consequences as may be warranted in law. Consequentially thereupon, the Commissioner of Entrance Examination would be at liberty to incorporate the terms of the approved fee structure in the Prospectus and to show this information in the Website maintained by it, as is normally done with respect to other colleges. 26. Consequentially thereupon, the Commissioner of Entrance Examination would be at liberty to incorporate the terms of the approved fee structure in the Prospectus and to show this information in the Website maintained by it, as is normally done with respect to other colleges. 26. Before we part with this case, we must record that, in fact, some students of the petitioner's college had approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.22394 of 2017 challenging Ext.P19 report of the FRC, but it was subsequently withdrawn as being not pressed, which was recorded by this Court in the judgment dated 24.01.2018. We are also told at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the students thereafter approached the FRC seeking review of the order but that the same was also dismissed by the FRC holding that it had issued Ext.P19 order on the basis of the directions from the Government. We are told that this order has now attained finality because it was not subjected to any further challenge by the students thereafter. This is only an adscititious reason which compels us to find in favour of Ext.P19 order. 27. We further clarify, as has been requested by the learned counsel appearing for the FRC, that our conclusions and observations in this judgment are based on the specific facts that has been pleaded and noticed by us herein and that we have not conclusively spoken on the jurisdiction of the FRC in other circumstances. This Writ Petition is thus ordered.