ORDER : Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Venugopal Patel waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent No. 1. 2. The issue that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the respondent State Government could issue circular/resolution fixing maximum amount towards fee reimbursement to be paid to the Schools providing free and compulsory elementary education as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the RTE Act"). 3. The petitioners, who are the Associations registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Public Trust Act, 1950 have filed the present petition, challenging the Government Resolution dated 30.7.2015 issued under the RTE Act by the respondent No. 1, on the ground of being arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable. 4. As per the case of the petitioners, they are functioning for the betterment of teachers in the education field. Their members include Government granted and self-financed (non-granted) schools. The petitioner No. 1 Association has more than 3000 non-granted schools as members, and petitioner No. 2 Association has more than 4000 granted and non-granted schools. According to the petitioners, the respondent authorities levy upon the schools the expenditure of extra-curricular activities, which are carried on by the schools on voluntary basis. The provisions of the RTE Act make education a legal right of every child within the age of 6 and 14 and specify minimum norms in elementary schools. The said Act requires all private schools to reserve 25% of seats for the children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary education. The respondent No. 1 had issued a Government Resolution dated 30.7.2015 fixing upper limit of Rs. 10,000/- for the reimbursement to the schools towards the expenses, which they incur per student, which is under challenge. 5. The petition has been countered by the respondent No. 2 by filing three affidavits, one after the other pursuant to the orders passed by the Court. It has been mainly contended inter alia that as per Section 35 of the RTE Act, the State Government has power to issue guidelines and directions as it deems fit for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the RTE Act. It has been mainly contended inter alia that as per Section 35 of the RTE Act, the State Government has power to issue guidelines and directions as it deems fit for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the RTE Act. In view of Section 12(2) of the said Act, a committee was constituted for determining as to what amount should be reimbursed to the schools, as per the Government Resolution dated 23.05.2013. On the basis of the report of the said committee, the Government Resolution dated 30.07.2015 was issued fixing the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for reimbursement to the private primary schools. It is further contended that as per the Government Resolution in question, the concerned schools were being paid Rs. 10,000/- per student byway of reimbursement of expenditure incurred by them, and now it has been revised to Rs. 13,500/- per student. 6. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Government Resolution dated 30.7.2015 is de hors the provisions contained in Section 12(2) of the RTE Act, inasmuch as the State Government cannot fix the outer limit to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- for reimbursement. He drew the attention of the Court to the affidavit-ih-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 wherein it has been stated that the State Government has spent Rs. 11,658/- per student for the year 2013-14, Rs. 14,477/- for the year 2014-15, and Rs. 15,607/- for the year 2015-16. Hence, according to Mr. Oza, the Government could not issue the Government Resolution for fixing up a fixed amount of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the non-granted schools when the said schools are entitled to the amount of expenditure incurred by the State per child or the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less, as per Section 12(2) of the said Act. Mr. Oza has not pressed for the other issues with regard to non-payment of hostel, lodging, boarding, mess, transportation etc., as they do not survive in view of the affidavit dated 8.9.2016 filed by the respondent No. 2. 7. However, the learned AGP Mr. Venugopal Patel submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the member schools of the petitioners have incurred expenditure more than Rs. 10,000/- per student during the year 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2014-15 to which the Government Resolution dated 30.7.2015 was applicable. 8. 7. However, the learned AGP Mr. Venugopal Patel submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the member schools of the petitioners have incurred expenditure more than Rs. 10,000/- per student during the year 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2014-15 to which the Government Resolution dated 30.7.2015 was applicable. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions contained in the RTE Act. 9. Section 2(n) defines "School" as under:- 2. Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (n) "school" means any recognised school imparting elementary education and includes- (i) a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government of a local authority; (ii) an aided school receiving aid or grants to meet whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority; (iii) a school belonging to specified category; and (iv) an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority; 10. Section 12 reads as under:- "12. Extent of school's responsibility for free and compulsory education (1) For the purposes of this Act, a school, (a) specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2 shall provide free and compulsory elementary education to all children admitted therein: (b) specified in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of section 2 shall provide free and compulsory elementary education to such proportion of children admitted therein as its annual recurring aid or grants so received bears to its annual recurring expenses, subject to a minimum of twenty five per cent.; (c) specified in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 shall admit in class I, to the extent of at least twenty five per cent of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary education till its completion: Provided further that where a school specified in clause (n) of section 2 imparts preschool education, the provisions of clauses (a) to (c) shall apply for admission to such preschool education. (2) The school specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 providing free and compulsory elementary education as specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred by it to the extent of per-child-expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that such reimbursement shall not exceed per-child-expenditure incurred by a school specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2: Provided further that where such school is already under obligation to provide free education to a specified number of children on account of it having received any land, building, equipment or other facilities, either free of cost or at a concessional rate, such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement to the extent of such obligation. (3) Every school shall provide such information as may be required by the appropriate Government or the local authority, as the case may be." 11. From the bare reading of the said provisions of the Act, it appears that the Act has been enacted to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age 6 to 14 years. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 provides that the school belonging to specified category and un-aided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from appropriate Government or local authority, as included in the definition of school under Section 2(n) has to admit in Class-1 to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group from the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory education till its completion. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 inter alia provides that such schools providing free and compulsory elementary education shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred by it to the extent of per child expenditure incurred by the State Government or the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less in such manner as may be prescribed. Hence, the non-granted schools providing free education would be entitled to be reimbursed the expenditure incurred by it to the extent of per child expenditure incurred by the State Government or actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less. Only the manner in which such reimbursement could be made, could be prescribed by the State Government. Hence, the non-granted schools providing free education would be entitled to be reimbursed the expenditure incurred by it to the extent of per child expenditure incurred by the State Government or actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less. Only the manner in which such reimbursement could be made, could be prescribed by the State Government. The State Government cannot fix any particular amount to be paid to such schools towards reimbursement of expenditure under Section 12(2) of the said Act. As such in each case, figure is required to be worked out as to how much actual amount the school has charged from the child and how much amount the State has incurred per child, and the non-granted schools would be entitled to be reimbursed the amount whichever is less, of course, subject to the other provisos to the Section 12(2). The words "in such manner as may be prescribed" have to be construed as for the purpose of manner of making reimbursement of such amount. The State Government cannot fix any particular amount for the payment to the schools towards reimbursement so far as sub-section (2) of Section 12 is concerned. Hence, the Court finds substance in the submission of Mr. Oza that Government Resolution dated 30.6.2015 issued by the respondent No. 1 State Government could not be said to be in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 12(2) of the RTE Act. 12. Even otherwise, as per the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the State Government has incurred expenditure more than Rs. 10,000/- per student during the period 2011-12 to 2014-15. Therefore, the State Government under the guise of the said Government Resolution could not make reimbursement to the non-granted schools only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per student for the expenditure incurred by such schools, when such schools are entitled to the amount to the extent of per child expenditure incurred by the State Government or the actual amount charged from the child whichever is less. 13. In that view of the matter, the impugned Government Resolution dated 30.7.2015 being de hors the provisions contained in Section 12(2) of the RTE Act deserves to be quashed and set aside, and accordingly is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Oza has not prayed for any other reliefs. 14. 13. In that view of the matter, the impugned Government Resolution dated 30.7.2015 being de hors the provisions contained in Section 12(2) of the RTE Act deserves to be quashed and set aside, and accordingly is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Oza has not prayed for any other reliefs. 14. Hence, the petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.