ORDER : DEVDAS, J. The petitioners are students pursuing Post Graduation in Dental Surgery (MDS) in the fourth respondent-University. The lis brought before this Court is regarding arbitrary fixation of tuition fee. 2. Sri Prashanth Kumar D., learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were allotted seats in terms of the consensual agreement entered into between the respondent-State of Karnataka and Consortium of Deemed to be Universities in the State of Karnataka (CODEUNIK), for the academic year 2017-2018. The fourth respondent-University is a part of the consortium, therefore, the fourth respondent has accepted the consensual agreement and acted accordingly. However, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even as per the consensual agreement, the fee structure at Clause-6, chargeable for 33% of Government quota students is Rs.2,25,000/- for MDS. Therefore, it is submitted that the third respondent-Karnataka Examination Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KEA’ for short) and the fourth respondent-University have disregarded the same and collected Rs.6,00,000/- as tuition fees for each academic year. 3. The learned Counsel, drawing the attention of this Court to the statement of objections filed by the fourth respondent would submit that it is an admitted fact that the fourth respondent-University was allotted 32 seats in MDS course, out of which 13 seats were surrendered by the University to the State Government for allotment of seats on the basis of ranking of KEA and the balance of 23 seats were retained to be filled up by the Management under the institutional preference and NRI quota on the basis of NEET eligibility. It is further pointed out from the M.S.Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences Act, 2012, which was notified in the Official Gazette on 09.07.2013, that the fourth respondent-University is a Private University, unlike a Deemed to be Universities, which are required to be notified under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act for short). It was further pointed out that since the fourth respondent is not a Deemed University, the provisions of Section 4A of The Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Fee Act, 2015’ for short), would apply. It was further pointed out that since the fourth respondent is not a Deemed University, the provisions of Section 4A of The Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Fee Act, 2015’ for short), would apply. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Section 4A of the Fee Act, 2015, the fourth respondent, like any other institution, not being a Deemed to be University, is required to collect Rs.2,25,000/- and not Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. Per contra, Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for fourth respondent-University would clarify that the fourth respondent is neither a Professional Educational Institution (Unaided) nor a Deemed to be University, whereas, it is an University established and incorporated in the State of Karnataka under a separate enactment known as M.S.Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences Act, 2012, which was notified in the Official Gazette on 09.07.2013. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the fourth respondent is not notified by the Central Government as an institution Deemed to be University under Section 3 of the UGC Act. While pointing out to Subsection (3) of Section 4B of the Fee Act, 2015, it was submitted that since the fourth respondent voluntarily agreed to become a party to the consensual agreement with the State Government, the seat sharing formula of not less than 25% of the total intake was surrendered to the State Government at such rate of fee agreed upon in the consensual agreement. 5. Moreover, it was submitted that there is no arbitrariness in the fixing of tuition fee with respect to the petitioners. It was pointed out from the consensual agreement for the academic year 2017-2018 that the fee fixed for Post Graduate courses of MDS, in all the nine specialities, was Rs.6,00,000/- per year. The petitioners have given an undertaking in terms of the consensual agreement that they shall pay Rs.6,00,000/per year, towards tuition fee and therefore, they cannot cry hoarse, having accepted and undertaken to pay the fee fixed in accordance with the consensual agreement. 6. Heard Sri Prashanth Kumar D., learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4University, Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for third respondent-KEA and Smt.M.S.Prathima, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2. We have perused the writ papers. 7. 6. Heard Sri Prashanth Kumar D., learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4University, Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for third respondent-KEA and Smt.M.S.Prathima, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2. We have perused the writ papers. 7. The grievance of the petitioners seems to have arisen from the fact that the fourth respondent-University, prescribed tuition fee of Rs.6,00,000/- for MDS students, for the academic year 2017-2018, while the fee prescribed for the next academic year 2018-2019 is Rs.2,74,250/-. Since the Post Graduate course is for a period of three years, the tuition fee prescribed shall be paid for all the three years. 8. We do not find any force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the technical ground that the fourth respondent is a Private University, not being a Deemed-to-be University, would fall under the category of any other Professional Educational Institution. It is an admitted fact that the fourth respondent has been established as an University under an enactment of the State Government. Section 4B(1) of the Fee Act, 2015, provides for a deemed University institution which fails to follow UGC Regulations in making admission to Professional Educational Courses, such University shall still constitute an association for conduct of Common Entrance Test for admission to their seats and such Deemed University Institutions shall make admission through Common Entrance Test for their Professional Educational Courses. The proviso to Section 4B(1) would provide that such Deemed University Institutions may opt to fill up other than Government seats, if any, through Common Entrance Test Committee or through association of unaided Professional Educational Institutions. Sub-Section (3) of Section 4B would provide that such Universities, if they agree to consensual agreement with the State Government, they shall also agree to the seat sharing formula of not less than 25 per cent of the total intake and surrender the same to the State Government at such rate of fee agreed upon in the consensual agreement. Therefore, in terms of the consensual agreement of the year 2017-2018, if the consortium of deemed Universities have agreed in common to fix the tuition fees at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/per year, no arbitrariness could be indicted to the fourth respondent-University. We find from the list of institutions along with the consensual agreement, 2017-2018 that the Deemed Universities are allowed to collect Rs.6,00,000/- as tuition fee. 9. We find from the list of institutions along with the consensual agreement, 2017-2018 that the Deemed Universities are allowed to collect Rs.6,00,000/- as tuition fee. 9. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to see the heartburn caused to the petitioners, who are meritorious students who have secured Government quota seats. The petitioners, who have secured Government quota seats in the year 2017-2018, are required to pay Rs.6,00,000/-, each year, for the three years course. Similarly situated students who secured Government quota seats in the next academic year viz., 2018-2019 are required to pay Rs.2,74,250/-, each year, for the three years course. On the face of it, we do not find any rationale behind the fee fixation. No doubt, the fourth respondent has not committed any irregularity or cannot be accused of arbitrariness, however, Professional Educational Institutions, Deemed Universities and their Consortium, including the State Government should have deliberated upon this issue. A solution could have been arrived at, by the State Government and the Consortium of Professional Institutions and Universities. The discrepancy in the fee fixation between the academic year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 strikes at the root of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. Keeping in mind the above discussion, we dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the State Government and the Consortium of Professional Educational Institutions and Universities (CODEUNIK) to reconsider the representations made by the petitioners herein and all such students of the year 2017-2018 and arrive at a solution in either reducing the fee structure or granting concessions, in view of the difference in payment of fee compared to the year 2018-2019. We hope and trust that the State Government and the Consortium of Professional Educational Institutions and Universities (CODEUNIK) will rise up to the occasion and pass suitable orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.