JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate for respondent No.4 Committee. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "9(B) To direct respondent no.1 to 3 to return the excess fee to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the academic year 2006-07 and 2007-08 as directed by the respondent Committee vide its decision dated 25.02.2008; (C) To direct the respondent Committee to determine the fee structure and the rate of fee for the academic year 2003-04 to 2005-06 or at least for the academic year 2005-06 for Postgraduate Degree Courses of respondents no.1 to 3 in the context of the present petition; (D) In the alternative be pleased to determine the fee structure and the rate of fee for the Postgraduate Medical Course of the petitioner for the academic year 2005-06 on the basis of the rational and reasons relied upon by respondent Committee to arrive and approve the fee structure for the academic year 2006-07 to 2008-09; (E) To direct the respondent Sardar Patel University to take all the possible punitive and penalizing action against respondent no.1 to 3 for deliberately acting contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in charging unapproved fee to the petitioner, resorting collection of capitation fee, indulging into profiteering and thereby commercializing the field of education; (F) In the alternative be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to 3 to refund the excess fee for the academic year 2006-07 and 2007-08 as directed by the respondent Committee and also refund the amount of excess fund calculated by the petitioner in the present petition resorting to the same rational and reasons adopted by the respondent Committee while approving the fee structure for the academic year 2006-07 to 2008-09; (G) During the pendency and/or final disposal of the present petition be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to 3 to immediately deposit the excess fee with interest at the rate of 12% per annum collected from the petitioner in the Registry of this Hon'ble High Court;" 3. With passage of time and in light of the progress of the events and consequential developments, the scope of the petition as well as the petitioner's grievance and the issue on hand have narrowed down essentially to one issue, i.e. refund of the fees paid by the petitioner and necessary set off/adjustment. 3.1 The said aspects have to be decided in light of three orders passed by respondent No.4 Committee. 4. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged that present petitioner secured admission with respondent No.1 Institute for Post Graduation in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, in May 2005. The respondent No.1 demanded fee @ Rs. 8,56,500/- for 1st year and Rs. 8,51,500/- for 2nd and 3rd years. 4.1 The said respondent also insisted that a bond to the extent of the fee for 2nd and 3rd academic years should be executed. 4.2 It appears that at the relevant time, the respondents, in the alternative (to the requirement of bond) offered a scheme to the students whereby it was offered that, instead of executing and submitting bond, if the student pay total fees then the student would be entitled for discount/reduction in total amount of fees. 4.3 The respondent institute claims that present petitioner chose the said option and the petitioner paid upfront Rs. 24,75,000/-. 4.4 Around the time 1st term/semester commenced, the colleges were obliged to approach Fee Committee for approval of fee structure. 4.5 Consequently, the respondent institute also approached the Fee Committee with its proposal for approval of fee structure. 4.6 As mentioned above, respondent No.4 Committee passed three orders from time to time. Couple of orders came to be passed pursuant to the remand of the proceedings by High Court. 5. Respondent No.1 Institute has summarised the events and developments which took place from the date the petitioner secured admission till now. 5.1 The said summary is provided to the learned advocate for the petitioner. Except with regard to the contentions mentioned by respondent No.1 in said summary, the narration with regard to the facts and events mentioned in the summary dated 13.8.2018 is not disputed by learned advocate for the petitioner. 5.2 The relevant facts mentioned in said summary are reproduced hereinbelow, because it would give a bird's-eye view of all events which take place in the interregnum: "1. 5.2 The relevant facts mentioned in said summary are reproduced hereinbelow, because it would give a bird's-eye view of all events which take place in the interregnum: "1. The Petitioner applied for admission for postgraduate course in the discipline of Medicine in the set up of Respondent No.1 by moving an application in this regard dated 8th February, 2005 (Page 86) 2. Pursuant to aforesaid, on 4th April, 2005, the Petitioner was offered an admission for the postgraduate course in the discipline of Medicine in the branch of obstetrics and gynaecology subject to terms and conditions specified therein (Page 88) 3. The duration of the aforesaid course offered to the Petitioner was 3 years commencing from the academic year 2005-06. 4. One of the conditions specified in the aforesaid letter of offer for admission to the Petitioner was with regard to the fee structure. As for the same, the fee for the first year, being the academic year 2005-06 was stipulated at Rs. 8,56,500/-, whereas for the remaining two years, being the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08, it was stipulated at Rs. 8,51,500/- per annum. 5. As per the terms and conditions set out in the aforesaid letter of offer of admission, the Petitioner was required to pay fee for the first academic year forthwith upon acceptance of the said offer of admission and for the remaining two years, Petitioner was required to pay fee as and when the same was to become due upon commencement of the concerned academic years. However, the Petitioner was required to provide appropriate security for ensuring the payment of fee for the subsequent two academic years. 6. Even the prospectus for the postgraduate courses published by the Respondent No. 1 also stipulated the aforesaid with regard to the fee structure (Page 90, relevant pages 97 and 99). 7. The Petitioner accepted the aforesaid letter of offer for admission and thereupon, made the payment of Rs. 8, 56,500/- by way of fee for the first academic year being 2005- 06 on 4th April, 2005. 8. 7. The Petitioner accepted the aforesaid letter of offer for admission and thereupon, made the payment of Rs. 8, 56,500/- by way of fee for the first academic year being 2005- 06 on 4th April, 2005. 8. So far as the fee for the remaining two academic years was concerned, instead of submitting security for the due payment thereof, the Petitioner opted for the scheme evolved by Respondent No.1 whereby the Petitioner was required to make the payment of fee for the next two academic years in advance by availing the discount offered by Respondent No. 1 on the fee to be paid. Accordingly, on 30th April, 2005, the Petitioner made the payment of fee for the subsequent two academic years in advance by availing the discount. 9. Thus, in view of the above, the Petitioner made the total payment of Rs. 24, 75,500/- by way of fees for the entire course comprising the three academic years being 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 10. So far as the aforesaid payment of fee by the Petitioner is concerned, the same is not in dispute. (Page 56, relevant page 59 paragraph 6 where even Petitioner confirms having paid in all the sum of Rs. 24,75,500/-) 11. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner abandoned the course midstream by not reporting for the same with effect from July, 2005. 12. In the present petition, the Petitioner has prayed for refund of the fee in part on the premise that what was paid by the Petitioner by way of fee for the entire course was in excess of fee later on approved by Respondent No. 4 Admission Committee vide its order dated 17th July, 2007 as reflected from the communication dated 15th February, 2008 (Page 66) addressed by Respondent No. 4 Admission Committee to Respondent No. 1 and therefore, Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were liable to refund the differential amount of fee to the Petitioner. 13. Based upon the aforesaid, the Petitioner prayed for refund of Rs. 10, 30,000/- (Page 56, relevant page 60 paragraph 10 where the Petitioner quantified the amount of refund) 14. The aforesaid quantification of Rs. 10,30,000/- made by the Petitioner is on following basis:- The fee for the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08 was later on fixed at Rs. 13. Based upon the aforesaid, the Petitioner prayed for refund of Rs. 10, 30,000/- (Page 56, relevant page 60 paragraph 10 where the Petitioner quantified the amount of refund) 14. The aforesaid quantification of Rs. 10,30,000/- made by the Petitioner is on following basis:- The fee for the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08 was later on fixed at Rs. 3, 17,000/- and 3, 56,000/- respectively by Respondent No. 4 Admission Committee and therefore, the fee claimed from the Petitioner at the time of her admission at rate of Rs. 8, 51,500/- per annum for the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08 was in excess of the fee so fixed by Respondent No.4 Admission Committee. Hence, the differential amount of fee so paid by the Petitioner in excess would work out at Rs. 5, 34,500/- and Rs. 4,95,500/- for the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Thus, arithmetically speaking, the total amount liable to be refunded to the Petitioner would work out at Rs. 10, 30,000/- (i.e. 5, 34,000/- for the academic year 2006-07 plus Rs. 4, 95,000/- for the academic year 2007-08). The aforesaid order dated 17th July, 2007 which form basis of the aforesaid amount of refund claimed by the Petitioner is annexed hereto vide a separate compilation and marked as Annexure-1. 15. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 have no objection in accepting that what was paid by way of fee at the relevant time by the Petitioner in excess of what was fixed by the Respondent No.4 Admission Committee at a later stage as fee for the aforesaid course was liable to be refunded to the Petitioner. However, Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have objection to the quantification made by the petitioner for claiming refund. The reasons for the same are following:- The aforesaid order dated 17th July, 2007 was revised by Respondent No. 4 Admission Committee vide its order dated 8th May, 2008. As per the same, the fee for the aforesaid course came to be revised to Rs. 3,65,000/- per student for the academic year 2006-07 and Rs. 4,20,000/- per student for the academic year 2007-08. A copy of the said order dated 8th May, 2008 is annexed hereto vide a separate compilation and marked as Annexure-2. As per the same, the fee for the aforesaid course came to be revised to Rs. 3,65,000/- per student for the academic year 2006-07 and Rs. 4,20,000/- per student for the academic year 2007-08. A copy of the said order dated 8th May, 2008 is annexed hereto vide a separate compilation and marked as Annexure-2. The aforesaid order dated 8th May, 2008 was subject to challenge by Respondent No. 3 by preferring a Writ Petition, being Special Civil Application No. 8040 of 2008 before this Honourable Court. Following the orders which came to be passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition, being Special Civil Application No. 8040 of 2008, the aforesaid order dated 8th May, 2008 came to be revised by Respondent No. 4 Admission Committee vide its orders dated 20th October, 2008 and 8th July, 2009. A copy of the orders dated 20th October, 2008 and 8th July, 2009 is annexed hereto vide a separate compilation and marked as Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 respectively. The aforesaid order dated 8th July, 2009 is the final order on the fee structure for the aforesaid course and as per the same, the fee structure for the aforesaid course came to be fixed at Rs. 5,22,000/- per student per annum for the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08 as also for the academic year 2008-09. So far as fee for the academic year 2005-06 was concerned, the same remained at Rs. 8,56,000/- as the same was not revised by Respondent No.4 Admission Committee vide any of its aforesaid orders. 16. In view of the above, the fees paid in excess by the Petitioner for the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08 would work out at Rs. 6,59,000/-. Therefore, the same is the amount which is required to be refunded to the Petitioner on the basis of the claim of the Petitioner in the present petition. 17. However, pursuant the order dated 16th May, 2008 passed in the present petition, in all the sum of Rs. 13, 25,500/- was deposited by Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 with the Registry of this Honourable Court. 18. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 13,25,500/-, in all sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- was permitted to be withdrawn by the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated 2nd September, 2008 and 12th September, 2008 passed in the present petition. 13, 25,500/- was deposited by Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 with the Registry of this Honourable Court. 18. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 13,25,500/-, in all sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- was permitted to be withdrawn by the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated 2nd September, 2008 and 12th September, 2008 passed in the present petition. Thus, the amount permitted to be withdrawn by the Petitioner is in excess of the amount to which the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to by way of refund to the extent of Rs. 3,91,000/-. 19. In view of the above, since the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- was permitted to be withdrawn by the Petitioner subject to an undertaking, the Petitioner is liable to refund the sum of Rs. 3,91,000/- to Respondent No. 1. In addition, the sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- presently lying with the Registry of this Hon'ble Court deserves to be refunded to Respondent No.1. (i.e. Rs. 13,25000/- deposited with the Registry as aforesaid Minus Rs. 10,50,000/- permitted to be withdrawn by the Petitioner as aforesaid)." The said narration sums up factual backdrop and the said narration is also summation of respondent's submissions. 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to take into account the relevant part of three orders which came to be passed by respondent No.4 Committee with regard to the fee structure of respondent No.1 Institute. 6.1 In the order dated 17.7.2017, respondent No.4 Committee recorded below quoted observation and thereupon finalised the fee structure as mentioned in paragraph No.9, for the Academic Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 : "Based on these criteria, the cost of medical education for the Post Graduation Courses run by Chautar Arogya Mandal as per audited accounts for the year 2005-06 and the fees to be charged works out as under. 1. The distinction has been made between clinical and paraclinical/pre-clinical courses in fixing the fees for each course. 2. The total cost of education consists of medical education as well as medical care cost. 3. While the medical education cost has been allocated over all the courses, the medical care cost has been allocated over clinical courses only as advised by MCI representative member of the Committee. 4. Total number of students at any time has been assumed to be 130 as under. 3. While the medical education cost has been allocated over all the courses, the medical care cost has been allocated over clinical courses only as advised by MCI representative member of the Committee. 4. Total number of students at any time has been assumed to be 130 as under. a. Clinical Degree 63 (21 x 3) b. Clinical Diploma 40 (20 x 2) c. Para Clinical Degree 15 (5 x 3) d. Para Clinical Diploma 6 (3 x 2) e. Pre-clinical Degree 6 (2 x 3) 5. As explained above, the medical education cost is allocated over 130 students, the medical care cost is allocated over only 103 students of clinical courses. 6. Taking audited accounts for the year 2005-06 Rs. 148 lacs has been considered as medical education cost and Rs. 209 lacs has been taken as medical care cost. 7. In the final analysis, the per student cost for clinical courses comes to Rs. 3.17 lacs and the same for other courses comes to Rs. 1.14 lacs. 8. Based on the past history of the College, the Committee has considered 12% increase to take care of inflation and development. 9. Accordingly the fees for the period of 3 years is recommended as under. Rs. in lacs Course 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Clinical 3.17 3.55 3.98 Para/ 1.14 1.28 1.43 Pre Clinical Other conditions to apply : The college will not take fees for the full courses at the time of admission. The fees should be collected per term. The college will not ask for any bank guarantee or security of any kind from students or their parents. The college will not take any other fee, deposit, charge or advance in the name of gymkhana, computer center, internet facility laboratory, library, sports, recreation, self development etc. 17th July, 2007" 6.2 Subsequently, the said decision came to be modified vide order dated 8.5.2008. The relevant modification reads thus : "3. Considering the above, the fees recommended for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are amended as under : Post Graduate Course Fees for 2006-07 Rs. in lacs Fees for 2007-08 Rs. in lacs Fees for 2008-09 Rs. 17th July, 2007" 6.2 Subsequently, the said decision came to be modified vide order dated 8.5.2008. The relevant modification reads thus : "3. Considering the above, the fees recommended for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are amended as under : Post Graduate Course Fees for 2006-07 Rs. in lacs Fees for 2007-08 Rs. in lacs Fees for 2008-09 Rs. in lacs Clinical 3.65 4.2 4.83 Pre-Clinical/Para Clinical 1.31 1.51 1.73 6.3 Subsequently, in 2009, there was further modification, pursuant to remand of the proceedings by High Court's order vide order dated 8.7.2009, the Committed recorded below observation and revised/determined the fee structure for the said three Academic Years (i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09) @ Rs. 5,22,000/- per student per year. The relevant part of the said order dated 8.7.2009 reads thus: "So far as the issue of development allowance is concerned, in the earlier exercise the Committee had allowed development allowance at the rate of 10%. After going through the track record of investments in the new equipments and other development work, the Committee is of the opinion that there is no need to increase the same. Based on the actual numbers for all the three years as explained above and allowing 10% for the development allowance, the average cost per student works out to Rs. 5.22 lakhs for all the courses put together including Master of Physiotherapy. To arrive at the cost per student, the Committee has considered actual number of students for each year. As such, the Committee in the final analysis, recommends the College to devise a fee structure providing for differential fee for the degree and diploma courses as also for different subjects as permitted in its supplementary order dated 20th October 2008, provided the average fee from all the courses and from all the students including the MPT Course for all the three years i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 does not exceed Rs. 5.22 lakhs per student per year. So far as the third point of the bank guarantee/security is concerned, the Committee is of the view that in view of cost of securing bank guarantee, the College should, as far as possible, refrain from insisting on bank guarantee. The Committee advises that the College should work out an alternate form of security/guarantee to ensure that no student, once admitted, abandons the course half way resulting into loss of opportunity for others. The Committee advises that the College should work out an alternate form of security/guarantee to ensure that no student, once admitted, abandons the course half way resulting into loss of opportunity for others. In this background, the college is free to work out an arrangement to ensure that the student leaving the course before completion pays the full amount of the Course for the entire term of two or three years as the case may be." 7. Besides this, at the time when respondent No.4 Committee passed previous order dated 8.5.2008, respondent No.4 Committee also issued below quoted clarification on 20.10.2008 : "The Committee also decided that at this stage fees should remain uniform for all the three years i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09. The Charutar Arogya Mandal would adjust the advances received from various students towards the fees and refund the excess where applicable immediately. Date:- 20/10/2008" 8. At this stage, another communication which was addressed by the Committee to the respondent No.1 Institute in February 2008 is also required to be taken into account. Respondent No.4 Committee, vide order dated 25.2.2008, conveyed that: "The Committee had perused the above referred representations regarding refund of excess fees in Post Graduate course in case of Dr. Narayan G. Patel, client of Advocate Anandvardhan J. Yagnik. The Committee noted that the committee had decided the fee structure of postgraduate courses for the academic year 2006-07 to 2008-09 on 17th July 2007. There was no proposal for deciding the fees for the academic years 2003-04 to 2005-06 from the institute or from students. Therefore, the committee did not undertake any exercise to finalize post graduate fees for the said period. At this point of time no retrospective proposal can be initiated. The management of the college had submitted a representation to revise the fees approved by the Committee for 2006-07 to 2008-09 vide letter dated 02.08.2008. The Committee had provide a reasoned response vide its letter dated 15.01.2008 regretting to reconsider its decision and amend the fee order dated 17th July 2007. Therefore postgraduate students of your institution are required to pay the fees as decided by the committee vide order dated 17th July 2007 for the years 2006-07 to 2008-09. You are hereby informed to refund the excess fees collected from the student, in excess of the fees approved by the committee for the years 2006-07 to 2008-09. Therefore postgraduate students of your institution are required to pay the fees as decided by the committee vide order dated 17th July 2007 for the years 2006-07 to 2008-09. You are hereby informed to refund the excess fees collected from the student, in excess of the fees approved by the committee for the years 2006-07 to 2008-09. Copies of above said representations are enclosed herewith. 9. At this stage, it is also necessary to take into account the interim order dated 16.5.2008 passed by the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel, as His Lordship then was). The said order reads thus: "1. Upon hearing Mr. Yagnik learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dave learned Counsel for the institute respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Shah learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, it appears that as reported by Mr. Shah learned Counsel for the committee, the committee has revised fee structure for the college, for post graduate courses in medical faculty for the year of 2006-2007 at Rs. 3.65 lacs per year, and for the year of 2007-2008 at Rs. 4.20 lacs per year. The said decision is taken on record. 2. The petitioner was admitted in the year of 2005-2006 and the educational course was to continue till 2007-2008, from the academic year of 2005-2006. There are rival contentions, namely that as per the petitioner the fee structure has to continue. Whereas the contention of the respondent college is that no fee structure was in operation and therefore, college was at the liberty to have its own fee structure. Be as it may, which shall be finalised at the later stage, but even if such aspects are considered, fee for the academic year of 2005-2006 in any case, would not exceed the fees for the year of 2006-2007, which is finalised by the committee at Rs. 3.65 lacs per year. 3. If the aforesaid details are considered, consequence would be that fee at the most would be Rs. 11.50 lacs, as against the same, the petitioner has admittedly deposited amount of Rs. 24,75,500/- with the respondent college. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 13,25,500/- under any set of circumstances will be required to be refunded by the respondent college to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Dave learned Counsel for the respondent institute declared before the Court that institute has no objection in depositing amount of Rs. 24,75,500/- with the respondent college. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 13,25,500/- under any set of circumstances will be required to be refunded by the respondent college to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Dave learned Counsel for the respondent institute declared before the Court that institute has no objection in depositing amount of Rs. 13,25,500/- with this Court, but the amount be invested in the Fix Deposit Receipts, so as to avoid the loss of interest of either side. 5. The aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the sides, namely that as per the petitioner no fees may be chargeable loss, whereas as per the respondent institute, full fee is chargeable irrespective of the fact that whether student has undergone studies or not. 6. Hence, Rule returnable on 26.6.2008. Mr. Dave learned Counsel waives service notice of rule for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Shah waives service of notice of rule for respondent No. 4. 7. By interim order it is directed that respondent college shall deposit the amount of Rs. 13,25,500/- on or before 16.6.2008 with this Court, and the office shall invest the same in FDR with State Bank of India, High Court branch initially for the period of one year, with the further clause of renewal, in the event the matter is not finalised in either way. Both the sides may complete their pleadings before the hearing of the matter. Direct service is permitted for respondent No. 5." 10. The said order dated 2.9.2008 in Civil Application No.9968 of 2008 is required to be read with the order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the Division Bench. The said order dated 2.9.2008 reads thus: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we direct respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to refund the sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Fifty Thousand only) for the present to Banaskantha District Central Co-operative Bank, Palanpur, Dantiwada Branch, by an account payee cheque in favour of the said Bank informing the Bank that the amount is being paid, under the orders of this Court, towards the applicant's loan account. This direction shall be complied with by 10th September 2008. It is clarified that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. This direction shall be complied with by 10th September 2008. It is clarified that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The Civil Application is disposed of with a direction to Banaskantha District Central Co-operative Bank, Palanpur, Dantiwada Branch to submit compliance report by 20.09.2008. Direct service is permitted today." 10.1 The said order dated 12.9.2008 in Misc. Civil Application (For Review) No.2424 of 2008 reads thus : "We see no reason to recall or modify our order dated 2.9.2008. However, while dismissing this application, we direct that the cheque for Rs. 10,50,000/- in favour of Banaskantha District Central Co-operative Bank, Palanpur, Dantiwada Branch shall be handed over by the Registry to the petitioner after the petitioner files an undertaking before this Court that the petitioner shall refund the amount in case the petitioner's contentions are not accepted by this Court and the petition is dismissed. The application is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid direction." 11. From cumulative reading of the chronology of events and above mentioned interim orders passed by the Court in present proceeding, it would emerge that: (a) the petitioner undisputedly deposited Rs. 24,75,500/- in April 2005; (b) respondent No.4 Committee has not determined the fees for the first Academic year, i.e. 2005-06 (so far as present petitioner is concerned); (c) the petitioner did not pursue her studies and on account of personal reasons and difficulties she discontinued the course and left the studies mid-stream in the first semester of three years' course; (d) ultimately, by final order dated 8.7.2009 the Committee fixed fee structure for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09; (e) the fee fixed by the Committee is considerably less than the fee charged and collected by the institute; (f) in this background, now the petitioner prays for above quoted relief; (g) by interim order, respondent No.1 institute has already paid Rs. 10,50,000/- to the petitioner and the petitioner has already received back Rs. 10,50,000/- (out of the total sum of Rs. 24,75,500/- paid by her in April 2005); (h) the respondent No.1 repaid said amount to the petitioner in September 2008; (i) the petitioner has also filed an undertaking (dated 17.9.2008) to return the amount, if so directed by the Court. 12. Fee structure for the first academic year i.e. 2005-06 is not determined by respondent No.4 Committee. 13. 24,75,500/- paid by her in April 2005); (h) the respondent No.1 repaid said amount to the petitioner in September 2008; (i) the petitioner has also filed an undertaking (dated 17.9.2008) to return the amount, if so directed by the Court. 12. Fee structure for the first academic year i.e. 2005-06 is not determined by respondent No.4 Committee. 13. It has emerged, from the Committee's letters, that neither the institute nor the students had submitted proposal/request or dispute/demand to determine fee structure for 2005-06. 14. In that regard, the committee, vide its communication dated 25.2.2008, conveyed that: "The Committee noted that the committee had decided the fee structure of postgraduate courses for the academic year 2006-07 to 2008-09 on 17th July 2007. There was no proposal for deciding the fees for the academic years 2003-04 to 2005-06 from the institution or from students. Therefore, the committee did not undertake any exercise to finalise post graduate fees for the said period. At this point of time no retrospective proposal can be initiated." 15. In this background, the question which survives for consideration by the Court is with regard to the fees structure for the first academic year 2005-06 and the demand for refund of excess fee (that part of the fee which the institute charged and recovered which is more than the fee determined by the Committee). 16. It is the Committee which is authorised and competent to decide fee structure. However, the said Committee conveyed, as back as in 2008, vide its intimation dated 25.2.2008 that it would not be feasible for the committee to determine the fees structure for academic year 2005-06, retrospectively. 16.1 What is not possible and/or what is impracticable for the expert Committee (Fee Committee) would be more impracticable for the Court, more so after almost more than 12 to 13 years and also in view of the fact that the material, relevant and necessary, to assess relevant factors and criteria for determining fee structure is not available on record. 16.2 The details and material which the Committee would ordinarily take into account is not available. 16.3 The said impediment is coupled with passage of almost 12 to 13 years. 16.2 The details and material which the Committee would ordinarily take into account is not available. 16.3 The said impediment is coupled with passage of almost 12 to 13 years. 16.4 In this view of the matter, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the University turned to and relied on interim order dated 16.5.2008 and submitted that the same analogy may be applied for first year's fee. 16.5 In this context, it would be appropriate to turn to and consider the observation by the Court in the order dated 16.5.2008 (which learned advocates relied and cited) wherein the Court observed, inter alia, that : "Be as it may, which shall be finalised at the later stage, but even if such aspects are considered, fee for the academic year of 2005-2006 in any case, would not exceed the fees for the year of 2006-2007, which is finalised by the committee at Rs. 3.65 lacs per year." 17. Thus, even according to the petitioner, first year's fees should be determined 'on the basis of the rational and reasons relied upon by respondent Committee to arrive and approve the fee structure for the academic year 2006-07 to 2008-09'. 18. When the said observation in the order dated 16.5.2008 and the request by the petitioner are read conjointly, it becomes clear that - (i) in view of passage of time it is not practicable to direct the fees committee to decide the fees structure for the academic year 2005-06; (ii) it would be more impracticable for this Court to determine the fees structure more so after 13 years and in absence of relevant details, data and material; (iii) reply with regard to the relief prayed for by the petitioner in paragraph Nos.9(C) and 9(D) lies in above quoted observation by the Court in Para-2 of the order dated 16.5.2008 and in the request made by the petitioner to determine the fees 'on the basis of the rational and reasons relied upon by respondent Committee to arrive and approve the fee structure for the academic year 2006-07 to 2008-09'. 19. Thus, it would be appropriate to direct, that the fees for the academic year 2005-06 should be considered at the rate determined by the Committee for 2nd academic year i.e. Rs. 5,22,000/-. 20. The Committee has already determined the fees for 2006-07 and 2007-08 (@ Rs. 5,22,000). 19. Thus, it would be appropriate to direct, that the fees for the academic year 2005-06 should be considered at the rate determined by the Committee for 2nd academic year i.e. Rs. 5,22,000/-. 20. The Committee has already determined the fees for 2006-07 and 2007-08 (@ Rs. 5,22,000). Consequently, the fees for all 3 academic years i.e. 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 will be Rs. 5,22,000/-. 21. In the result, in light of the foregoing discussion and for reasons mentioned above, following order is passed: (a) The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are entitled to charge fees for the academic year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 at the rate of Rs. 5,22,000/- per year per student; (b) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have, undisputedly, charged fees for 1st academic year i.e. 2005-06 at the rate of Rs. 8,56,500/- and Rs. 8,51,500/- and Rs. 8,51,500/- for 2nd and 3rd academic year; (c) Therefore, the respondents are directed to refund the excess fees charged and recovered by it in excess of Rs. 5,22,000 per year and per student; (d) The difference should be returned to the petitioner with interest (at lending rate charged by nationalised bank for education loan during the period in question i.e. from 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08); (e) So far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is also obliged to pay Rs. 5,22,000/- for each academic year i.e. 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and for the period from 2008 onwards till the date of actual payment the lending rate during concerned financial year shall be taken into account; (f) Since the petitioner has paid Rs. 24,75,500/- the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to refund of the excess amount i.e. amount recovered from her/paid by her in excess of Rs. 15,66,000/-; (g) The respondent is obliged to return the said difference to the petitioner with interest at the rate mentioned above; (h) If the petitioner has received more amount, by withdrawing Rs. 10,50,000/- then she would be obliged to return such excess amount, however, after adjusting the interest for the period from the date she paid Rs. 24,75,000/- till the date she received Rs. 10,50,000/-; (i) The interest would be payable to the petitioner from April, 2005 (i.e. from the date she paid Rs. 24,75,500/-) to September, 2008 (i.e. till the date when the respondent Nos.1 to 3 deposited amount with the registrar of the Court and the petitioner withdrew Rs. 24,75,000/- till the date she received Rs. 10,50,000/-; (i) The interest would be payable to the petitioner from April, 2005 (i.e. from the date she paid Rs. 24,75,500/-) to September, 2008 (i.e. till the date when the respondent Nos.1 to 3 deposited amount with the registrar of the Court and the petitioner withdrew Rs. 10,50,000/-); (j) The calculation of the amount, payable by the petitioner to the respondent, or by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the petitioner, shall be worked out by the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 to 3, inter se; (k) All that is declared and clarified is that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at above mentioned rate for the period from the date when she paid the amount to the date when respondent Nos.1 to 3 returned Rs. 10,50,000/- under Court's order and that the respondents would be entitled to charge Rs. 5,22,000/- per academic year from the petitioner; (l) Further details with regard to payment/ refund shall be worked out by the petitioner and the respondents. With aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged.