JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Bhash H. Mankad for the Petitioner-Trust, learned Government Pleader Ms. M.L. Shah assisted by learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Antani waives service of rule for the Respondents. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Trust has prayed for the following reliefs: “46. … (a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the order dated January 25, 2019 passed by Respondent No.1 i.e. Final Order, the order dated April 29,2019 passed by Respondent No.2 i.e. Revision Order and the order dated September 13, 2019 passed by Respondent No.1 in the rectification application filed by the petitioner on August 8, 2019, i.e. Rectification Order to be arbitrary, invalid, bad in law, ultra vires of the provisions of the Act and quash the same; (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 not to disallow expenditure towards rent paid or payable by the School as well as any other legitimate expense incurred by the Petitioner, while determining the School fee for the academic years 2017-2018 and 2018- 2019; (c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and effect of the directions and findings in the Impugned Orders. (d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of prohibition, or a writ in the nature of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the Respondents, prohibiting the Respondents, by themselves, their servants, agents, officers or subordinates from taking any action against the Petitioner, or officers of the School for non-compliance with the Impugned Orders; (e) Costs be provided for; (f) ...” 4. The brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1 The petitioner-Trust has established a self financed school in the year 2010 in Hebatpur, Ahmedabad, which is affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education Board (CBSE). The brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1 The petitioner-Trust has established a self financed school in the year 2010 in Hebatpur, Ahmedabad, which is affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education Board (CBSE). 4.2 It is the case of the petitioner-Trust that there are around 656 students studying in the pre-primary (Junior & Senior K.G.), Primary (Standards- 1 to 4), Upper Primary (Standards- 5 to 8) and Secondary (Standards- 9 to 10). The students, teacher ratio in the school is 14:1. 4.3 Respondent No.3 notified the Gujarat Self Financed Schools (Regulatory of Fees) Act, 2017 (in brief, ‘Act of 2017’) and the Gujarat Self Financed Schools (Regulatory of Fees) Rules, 2017 (herein after referred to as, ‘Rules of 2017’). 4.4 As per Section 8 of the Act of 2017, Respondent No.1-Fee Regulatory Committee (For short "respondent no.1-FRC”) is established to determine the fees payable by the students to self-financed schools. 4.5 Section 8(2)(b) of the Act of 2017 empowers Respondent No.1 to verify, whether the fee proposed by the self-financed school is justified and whether it amounts to profiteering or charging exorbitant fees. 4.6 The petitioner-Trust submitted their fee proposal for the pre-primary (Junior & Senior K.G.), Primary (Standards- 1 to 4), Upper Primary (Standards- 5 to 8) and Secondary (Standards- 9 to 10) to respondent no.1-FRC on 31st July, 2018 for the Academic Year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 along with the evidence in support of the fee proposed. 4.7 It is the case of the petitioner-Trust that as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 2017, for determining the fees for the Academic Year 2017- 2018, the schools are not required to submit audited accounts for Financial Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and provisional accounts for the Financial Year 2016-2017 along with the other documents specified therein. 4.8 Accordingly, the petitioner-Trust provided the audited balance sheets for the Financial Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. 4.9 According to the petitioner-Trust, for the Academic Year 2016-2017, the deficit suffered by the school run by the petitioner-Trust was more than Rs.41,00,000/-, which comes to about Rs.5900/- per student, i.e. 6% of the total revenue of the school. 4.10 Respondent No.1-FRC passed the provisional order determining the provisional fee for the Academic Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 on 5th October, 2018. 4.10 Respondent No.1-FRC passed the provisional order determining the provisional fee for the Academic Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 on 5th October, 2018. 4.11 The petitioner-Trust, on receipt of the provisional order, raised objections vide letter dated 15th October, 2018, by placing on record the audited balance-sheets for the Financial Year 2017-2018 and the provisional balance-sheet for the Financial Year 2018-2019.. 4.12 The petitioner-Trust also provided the copies of lease agreements for the school land, building and playground along with the objections raised. 4.13 The petitioner-Trust raised the further grievance vide letter dated 15th October, 2018 that with the increase in deficit, the school would be refrained from giving salary increment to the teaching and non-teaching staff, which usually ranges from 8% to 10% per annum. 4.14 It was also further stated in the letter dated 15th October, 2018 that for the Academic Year 2018-2019, the school had 19 students studying under the Right to Education Act, where, the State Government pays only Rs.10000/- per student and the total deficit incurred is Rs.9,93,204/-, i.e. Rs.55,178/- per student. 4.15 It was submitted that while passing the provisional order, above mentioned factors were not considered by respondent no.1-FRC while passing the provisional order. 4.16 It was also pointed out that the trustee is not the principal and principal is not a member of the petitioner-Trust. 4.17 The petitioner-Trust thereafter by letter dated 12th October, 2018 produced the audited balance-sheets for consideration of respondent no.1-FRC and further submitted that the market value of the school, at the time of lease, i.e. in December, 2019, was Rs.10,34,99,000/- and the value of the building approximately was Rs.13,44,00,000/-. It was therefore submitted that had the school taken loan at the minimum rate of 8% per annum, then, the school would have to pay Rs.1,90,31,920/- per annum since its inception and by taking the land on lease, the school is saving expenses, as per the calculations shown by the school. 4.18 It was also submitted that the market value of the land for the playground in August, 2015 was approximately 1,57,95,000/- and had the school taken loan at the simple interest rate of 8% per annum, then, the school would have to pay Rs.12,63,600/- since its inception. 4.19 Therefore, it was contended by the petitioner-Trust that the rent paid by the school is on lower side by saving the expense. 4.19 Therefore, it was contended by the petitioner-Trust that the rent paid by the school is on lower side by saving the expense. 4.20 The petitioner-Trust has also tendered explanation with regard to other expenses which were disallowed in the provisional order. The petitioner-Trust therefore prayed before respondent no.1-FRC to permit, at least, a hike of 12% per annum as surplus for growth and development of the school run by the petitioner- Trust. 4.21 Respondent No.1-FRC after considering the objections and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner-Trust, disallowed the sum of Rs.2,91,17,535/- from the total expenses of Rs.6,40,74,880/-, while determining the fees for the Academic Year 2017-2018. 4.22 From the impugned order passed by respondent no.1-FRC, it appears that while considering the disallowance of the expenditure, Respondent No.1 has taken into consideration a sum of Rs.1,02,00,000/- in respect of other purchases, as according to respondent no.1-FRC, no details of other purchases were produced by the petitioner-Trust. 4.23 Respondent No.1-FRC has also disallowed a sum of Rs.16,20,702/- on account of the expenses on payment of professional and legal fees and Rs.98,40,258/- towards transport expenses in respect of the optional activities, as the same would not form part of the regular expenses. 4.24 Respondent No.1-FRC also observed in Paragraph-6 of the impugned order that while passing the provisional order dated 5th October, 2018, the committee considered the fact that the rent of Rs.1,60,69,609/- for land and building of the school is very excessive and exorbitant. It has also further observed that the office rent of Rs.1,62,21,930/- is on the higher side. 4.25 Respondent No.1-FRC therefore determined the fees for pre-primary section of Rs.48,000/-, for primary section Rs.55,000/-, upper primary section Rs.60,000/- and for secondary section Rs.66,000/- per student. 4.26 Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.1-FRC, the petitioner-Trust preferred Revision Application No. 2 of 2019-20 before Respondent No.2-Fee Revision Committee, raising the grievance with regard to the determination of fees by disallowing the expenditure of Rs.2,91,17,535/-, out of the total expenses of Rs.6,40,74,880/- by respondent no.1- FRC. 4.27 It was submitted by the petitioner in the Revision Application in detail with regard to the aspect of each of the disallowance made. It was also pointed out in Paragraph-10 of the revision memo that with regard to the disallowance made out of the office rent, the petitioner-Trust explained in detail as to how the rent is justified. 4.27 It was submitted by the petitioner in the Revision Application in detail with regard to the aspect of each of the disallowance made. It was also pointed out in Paragraph-10 of the revision memo that with regard to the disallowance made out of the office rent, the petitioner-Trust explained in detail as to how the rent is justified. 4.28 Respondent No.2-Fee Revision Committee by the order dated 29th April, 2019, rejected the revision and confirmed the order passed by respondent no.1-FRC on the ground that the onus of justifying the particular level of fees on the school is upon the school, which makes a proposal. 4.29 It was also recorded by Respondent No.2- Fee Revision Committee that merely because the accounts are audited, the basic facts and the special factors if any of the particular schools are always known to such schools and there cannot be any general standard or parameters and respondent no.1-FRC cannot be expected to know about the every expenditure incurred by the school and the factual matrix of a particular school and therefore, under a time-bound scheduled laid down by the Act of 2017 and the rules thereof, as modified by the interim orders made by the Supreme Court of India, a school cannot expect that merely by placing audited accounts on record, the burden on the school to place evidence on record is discharged. 4.30 Respondent No.2-Fee Revision Committee therefore held that such school did not furnish the relevant documents or data in support of the audited balance-sheets, the findings given by respondent no.1-FRC is not required to be disturbed and no relief can be granted to the school run by the petitioner-Trust in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on the record. 4.31 It appears that the petitioner-Trust thereafter preferred Rectification Application before respondent no.1-FRC pointing out that as per the disallowances made by respondent no.1-FRC in the impugned order, the total disallowance would come to Rs.2,16,60,960/-, comprising Rs.1,02,00,000/-, out of the total other expenses, Rs.16,12,702/- towards legal fees and Rs.98,40,258/- towards transportation expenses, whereas, the expenditure disallowed by respondent no.1-FRC is Rs.2,91,17,535/- and the difference between Rs.2,16,60,960/- and Rs.2,91,17,535/- comes to about Rs.75,00,000/- and there is no explanation given in the impugned order passed by respondent no.1-FRC. It was therefore prayed that the total expenditure of Rs.2,16,60,960/- is required to be disallowed only and the balance Rs.4,24,13,920/-, out of the total expenditure of Rs.6,40,74,880/- is required to be considered as a legitimate expenditure incurred by the school run by the petitioner-Trust for determination of the fees by respondent no.1-FRC. 4.32 Respondent No.1-FRC by order dated 13th September, 2019, rejected the Rectification Application filed by the petitioner-Trust observing that the rent intended to be disallowed by respondent no.1-FRC was not mentioned in the calculation in the order dated 25th January, 2019 because in the working made after hearing the representatives of the petitioner-Trust at the time of final hearing, the respondent no.1-FRC disallowed the total expenses of Rs.2,91,17,535/- which was reflected in the final order. It was therefore, observed that if the amount of rent of about Rs.75,00,000/- out of the total claim of the office rent of Rs.1,62,21,930/- is added to the amount of Rs.2,16,60,960/-, it would virtually come to Rs.2,91,17,535/-. Respondent no.1-FRC therefore, held that as a matter of fact after adding disallowance of office rent of Rs. 75,00,000/- actual disallowable expenses would be Rs.2,91,60,960/- where as FRC has considered disallowance expenses of Rs.2,91,17,535/ which is in favour of the petitioner trust. 4.33 Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have preferred the present petition with aforesaid prayers. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Mankad submitted that respondent no.1-FRC, except, recording in the provisional order as well as in the impugned order determining that the rent paid by the petitioner-Trust for the land of the school is very excessive and exorbitant, there is no other finding given by respondent no.1-FRC for disallowance of the rent, which is not even mentioned in the impugned order. 5.1 It was further submitted that only for the rectification order, respondent no.1-FRC has made a backward working about the disallowance by pointing out that the difference of Rs.75,00,000/- pertains to disallowance of rent out of the total rent of Rs.1,62,21,930/- by the petitioner for the year 2018-2019. 5.2 It was pointed out that the petitioner-Trust in the objections raised after the passing of the provisional order by respondent no.1-FRC has categorically stated that none of the trustees or any of the management persons are related to the land owners. 5.2 It was pointed out that the petitioner-Trust in the objections raised after the passing of the provisional order by respondent no.1-FRC has categorically stated that none of the trustees or any of the management persons are related to the land owners. 5.3 It was also pointed out that Respondent No.1- Fee Regulation Committee in the impugned order has only objected to the rent being excessive and exorbitant and without there being any further finding given by respondent no.1-FRC, the rent could not have been disallowed without determining the actual disallowance in the impugned order. 5.4 It was also pointed out that even Respondent No.2-Fee Revision Committee has also not considered the fact of giving explanation as well as submitting lease deed on the record by the petitioner-Trust to justify the rent paid by it, more particularly, when such rent is duly reflected in the audited accounts, supported by lease deed and therefore it is not true and correct to say that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence in support of its claim that the rent as an expenditure. 5.5 It was also pointed out that merely because there are 32 owners of the land, it does not by itself make a ground for disallowance of the rent by respondent no.1-FRC. 5.6 It was further submitted that the petitioner- Trust in the objections raised have justified the payment of rent by referring to the valuation of the land and building and the consequent capital costs which the petitioner-Trust would incur for acquiring such land and building for the school. 5.7 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi also referred to the letter dated 21st December, 2018, which was submitted before respondent no.1-FRC, wherein it was contended that the owners of the school, land and building do not have any interest in the school operations or the surplus or the deficit incurred by the school or the petitioner-Trust. 5.8 There are total 32 individuals, who have formed seven HUFs and own this land. The copies of the HUFs are also placed on record before respondent no.1-FRC along with 7/12 extracts, which shows the names of the owners of the land. 5.9 It was therefore submitted that respondent no.1-FRC could not have disallowed any amount out of the rent paid by the school run by the petitioner-Trust. 5.10 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi, under the instructions received from learned Advocate Mr. 5.9 It was therefore submitted that respondent no.1-FRC could not have disallowed any amount out of the rent paid by the school run by the petitioner-Trust. 5.10 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi, under the instructions received from learned Advocate Mr. Mankad, submitted that the petitioner-Trust is restricting this petition only with regard to the disallowance of rent approximately of Rs.75,00,000/- only, out of the total amount of rent paid by the petitioner-Trust, for determining the fees by respondent no.1-FRC. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah assisted by learned AGP Mr. Antani submitted that the petitioner-Trust has failed to substantiate the reasonableness of the rent paid for the land and building of the school by leading the cogent evidence as recorded by respondent no.1-FRC as well as Respondent No.2- Fee Revision Committee. 6.1 It was further submitted that Respondent No.1-Fee Regulation Committee has gravely erred in holding that merely because the amount is reflected in the audited balance-sheets the petitioner-Trust and the school management cannot be absolved from the responsibility of proving the expenditure which is reflected in the books of accounts and the school is supposed to lead the proper evidence to justify a particular expenditure. 6.2 It was submitted that in such circumstances, respondent no.1-FRC has come to the conclusion that the rent paid by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant, as against that the petitioner-Trust has failed to lead to point out that the rent paid by the school run by the petitioner-Trust is not excessive and exorbitant. 6.3 It was submitted that in the provisional order also it was pointed out by Respondent No.1- Fee Regulation Committee that the rent paid by the school is excessive and exorbitant and the onus is upon the petitioner-Trust to prove that the rent paid by them is not excessive and exorbitant and in absence of any cogent evidence led by the petitioner-Trust to prove that the rent paid by it of Rs.1,62,21,930/- is not excessive and exorbitant and respondent no.1-FRC is bound to disallow the rent and accordingly, in its wisdom, it has disallowed the rent of about Rs.75,00,000/- out of the total rent of Rs.1,62,21,930/- paid by the school run by the petitioner-Trust for the land and the building upon which the school is running. 6.4 It was submitted that respondent no.1- FRC and respondent No.2-Fee Revision Committee have therefore committed no error by disallowance of the rent in absence of any evidence led by the petitioner-Trust. 7. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that respondent no.1-FRC, while passing the provisional order dated 5th October, 2018, and the impugned order dated 25th January, 2019, as well as well as the order passed by Respondent No.2-Fee Revision Committee dated 29th April, 2019, for determining the fees of the school run by the Petitioner-Trust for the Academic Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 have failed to take into consideration the aspect of rent by not considering the explanation tendered by the petitioner-Trust justifying the rent paid by it by not even referring to such explanation in the impugned orders and by not giving any reason, much less any cogent reason, to come to the conclusion that the rent paid by the petitioner-Trust is excessive and exorbitant. 8. It is also pertinent to note that in the impugned order dated 25th January, 2019, respondent no.1-FRC has also not mentioned as to how much rent is disallowed by it out of the total rent of Rs.1,62,21,930/- and it is only when the rectification order passed by respondent no.1-FRC, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the rent of about Rs.75,00,000/- is disallowed by respondent no.1-FRC for determining the fees for the Academic Year 2017- 2018. In such circumstances, on perusal of the impugned orders, except, writing two words “excessive and exorbitant”, no other cogent reason is given by respondent no.1-FRC. 9. In such circumstances, without there being any reason for disallowing the rent, which is legitimately paid by the petitioner-Trust and reflected in the books of accounts is also supported by the lease deeds produced on record as well as the explanation given by the petitioner-Trust in the objections raised as to how such rent is justified considering the valuation of the land and building as well as the capital costs which would have been incurred by the petitioner-Trust if the rent would not have been paid. As the respondents have failed to give any reason respondent no.1-FRC was not justified in disallowing Rs.75,00,000/- Lakh which is not even bifurcated in the impugned order. 10. As the respondents have failed to give any reason respondent no.1-FRC was not justified in disallowing Rs.75,00,000/- Lakh which is not even bifurcated in the impugned order. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed partly and is accordingly partly allowed and the impugned order is modified, while restricting the disallowance of Rs.2,16,60,960/-, instead of Rs.2,91,17,535/- and respondent no.1-FRC is directed to pass a fresh order determining the fees, taking into consideration the disallowance of Rs.2,16,60,960/- out of Rs.6,40,74,880/- and revise the fees for the block of three years, i.e. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, accordingly. Such exercise shall be completed within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.