JUDGMENT : A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. 1. These two writ petitions were filed challenging the orders passed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee permitting the students of Educare Institute of Dental Sciences to pay the final year's fee at 50%. Their contention was that in so far as the course was for 4½ years, the six months' fee shall not be charged akin to the Annual fee that was being collected in the previous year and their obligation was only to pay 50% of the same. While impugning the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions. One of the contentions is based on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kerala Self Financing Dental College, Kothamangalam v. State of Kerala and another [ 2017(5) KHC 919 (DB)], wherein this Court struck off Section 5(3) of the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, which provided for a quorum for convening a meeting. It is inter alia contended that while this Court in the said judgment had observed that the entire Committee of members constitutes a quorum, an order passed by the Chairman and a single Member is illegal. It is also contended that the complaint itself was not maintainable, as in one case 15 students were represented by an Advocate and in yet another case it was the Parents' Association who had filed the complaint. On merits it is contended that when the fee is spread over for the entire 4½ years and collected in instalments, the Committee committed error in directing that during the final six months' period, only 50% fee is paid. 2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents also. 3. As far as the jurisdiction of a Chairman and one Member to pass an order is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court (including myself) have already dealt with this issue in our judgment dated 19.3.2019 in W.P.(C)No.41590 of 2018. In that judgment, we have held that the Committee has the power to frame Regulations, to fix their own procedure for hearing and deciding the matter and even in the absence of a provision relating to quorum, it shall be open for the Committee to regulate their procedure. In that judgment, we have held that the Committee has the power to frame Regulations, to fix their own procedure for hearing and deciding the matter and even in the absence of a provision relating to quorum, it shall be open for the Committee to regulate their procedure. That apart, it was observed that the Regulation by which the Chairman and a Member was authorised to consider the complaint was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench while considering the judgment in Kerala Self Financing Dental College's case (supra). Hence, we do not think it necessary for us to take a different view in this case as well. 4. Now, regarding the maintainability of the complaint, apparently when a matter is filed before a Quasi Judicial Authority, the proper parties are to be impleaded in the case. This is also a situation in which, in one case, a lawyer represented 15 students and in another case it is the Parents' Association that has come forward. Unless and until a complaint is filed in a proper format, in the sense that, an aggrieved person approaches the forum, it is not open for the Committee to adjudicate such matters. If there is any such defect, the complainant ought to be given an opportunity to file a proper complaint or rectify the defects noted in the complaint. Merely for the reason that a lawyer had approached the Committee alleging that he represents 15 students will not enable the Committee to adjudicate the complaint. The same is the situation with reference to an association which is not a registered body. Only a legal entity, either a person or a duly constituted association of persons, a society, a company or a firm can agitate the matter before the Quasi Judicial Authorities. It is brought to our notice that all the students who are aggrieved had submitted a signed statement before the Committee, before the Committee had taken a final decision in the matter. However, the Committee shall ensure that proper parties are before it, while taking a decision in the matter. 5. As far as the merits of the contentions are concerned, the contention urged by the students or persons representing them was that when the course is only for 4½ years, for the final year, they need not pay the full fee. However, the Committee shall ensure that proper parties are before it, while taking a decision in the matter. 5. As far as the merits of the contentions are concerned, the contention urged by the students or persons representing them was that when the course is only for 4½ years, for the final year, they need not pay the full fee. Apparently, the entire fee for the course is spread over in five instalments. The fee had been fixed as per the Government Order dated 12.6.2013 (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.1767/2018) and agreement dated 16.5.2012 (Ext.P1 in W.P. (C)No.14036/2018). When the fee had been fixed by the Government and it had been agreed upon by the students, which is to be paid in five instalments on every year, it cannot be stated that they have no obligation to pay the full fee. From the impugned orders, it can be seen that the Committee has not gone into an adjudication of the merits involved in the matter, whereas a cursory order is seen to have been passed without going into the merits of the respective contentions. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Committee submits that the persons involved in the matter were already heard which is evident from the materials placed on record. We, therefore are of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of as under; Exts.P2 and P4 orders in W.P. (C)No.1767 of 2018 and Exts.P3 and P5 orders in W.P.(C)No.14036 of 2018 are set aside. All pending interlocutory applications are closed.