JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by 108 students of the respondent No. 6-school who were aggrieved by the increase in the fees payable by them. It is argued that fees was increased as recently as the previous academic session i.e. 2018-19 also, but now in the very next year i.e. academic session 2019-20 again the substantial increase in the amount of fees has been made. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of the Court towards the statement showing the fee with respect to the eight different academic sessions starting from 2012-13 upto 2019-20 and submits that there has been a substantial increase in the fees each year in utter violation of the provisions of Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016. The respondent-school have not adhered to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, which requires that fee shall be increased only on recommendation of the School Level Fee Committee consisting of the representative of management of school, three teachers nominated by management and also five parents from the Parent- Teachers Association. Section 6(3) requires that after considering all the relevant factors laid down under Section 8, the School Level Fee Committee shall approve the fee within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the details of the proposed fee and the record under sub-section (2) of Section 6. The details of the fee so approved by the Committee shall be displayed on the notice board in Hindi, English and in the respective medium of school, and if such school has its own website, it shall be displayed on the same and further that such revised fee shall be binding for three academic years. 3. It is argued that neither five parents, who were supposed to be Members of the School Level Fee Committee were ever informed of the meeting of such Committee, nor any such recommendation was obtained from them. The respondent-school has also not adhered to the requirement of maintaining the fee, once revised, for next three academic years as per Section 6(3) of the Act of 2016 and has been increasing fee by about 10% to 15% each succeeding year for last seven years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar & Ors. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.-JT 2005(7) SC 313 . 5. Issue notice, returnable by six weeks. 6. Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. For respondent Nos. 5, learned counsel for the petitioners shall supply copy of the petition to Shri M.S. Raghav, who appears for the respondent No. 5-CBSE in connected matters. For respondent No. 6, notice be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. In the meanwhile, if the petitioners pays fee as per the rate prevalent in the previous academic year i.e. 2018-19, the respondent-school management shall allow them to prosecute the studies. 8. List the matter on 17th July, 2019 along with CW No. 8907/2016 and connected matters. Name of Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri M.S. Raghav, learned counsel for respondent No. 5-CBSE be shown in the cause list.