ORDER : Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipak B. Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Bhagirath N. Patel for the respondent No.1. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “9. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to; (a) Admit this petition; (b) Allow this petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby, be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08/08/2019 passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee, Surat Zone in Proposal No. SRT ZONE/BHR /PRO/B.P.11/2017-2018/2018-2019 and order dated 04/10/2019 passed by the Fee Revision Committee in Revision Application No. 75/2019-20: (c) Further be pleased to allow this petition by determining the fees of the petitioner school as per the proposal made by the petitioner school dated 21/03/2018; (d) Pending admission and till final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 08/08/2019 passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee, Surat Zone in Proposal No. SRT ZONE/BHR /PRO/B.P.11/2017-2018/2018-2019 and order dated 04/10/2019 passed by the Fee Revision Committee in Revision Application No. 75/2019-20; (e) Pending admission and till final disposal of this petition, further be pleased to permit the petitioner school to collect the fees as per the proposal dated 21/03/2018; (f) Pending admission and till final disposal of this petition further be pleased to direct the respondent committees not to compel the petitioner to refund the balance amount; (g) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass any other order or direction in the interest of petitioner and justice.” 2.1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Institution is running Pre-primary, Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary CBSE School. The petitioner made a proposal on 21st March, 2018 before the respondent No.1-Fee Regulartory Committee, Surat Zone for determination of the Fees for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. 2.2. The respondent No.1-Committee by order dated 16.04.2018 determined the provisional fees of the petitioner Institution as against the proposal of the fees made by the petitioner as under : Section Proposed fees 2017 - 2018 Provisional fee Determine by the committee Reduced Fee Nursery to Std. 3 68,600/- 48,020/- (- 20,580/-) Std. 4 To Std. 8 77,000/- 53,900/- (- 23,100/-) Std. 9 To 12 – General 79,800/- 55,860/- (-23,940/-) Std. 3 68,600/- 48,020/- (- 20,580/-) Std. 4 To Std. 8 77,000/- 53,900/- (- 23,100/-) Std. 9 To 12 – General 79,800/- 55,860/- (-23,940/-) Std. 11 & 12 - Science 84,000/- 58,800/- (- 25,200/-) Section Proposed fees 2018 - 2019 Provisional fee Determine by the committee Reduced Fee Nursery to Std. 3 76,832/- 50,420/- (-26,412/-) Std. 4 To Std.8 86,240/- 56,600/- (-29,640/-) Std. 9 To 12 - General 89,376/- 58,650/- (-30,726/-) Std. 11 & 12 - Science 94,080/- 61,740/- (-32,340/-) 2.3. The petitioner Institution being aggrieved by the provisional fees determined by the Committee, filed its objections and thereafter by letter dated 11.05.2018, respondent No.1-Committee called upon the petitioner to appear for hearing and to submit the documents in support of the objections raised by the petitioner to the provisional fees determined by the respondent No.1-Committee. 2.4. The petitioner sought time to appear before the respondent No.1-Committee as the key person of the Institution, Mr.N.K.Tewari (Trustee) was out of station and was also not keeping well. 2.5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1-Committee passed an order dated 8th August, 2019 determining the final fees at the rate of 67% for the year 2017-18 and giving increase of 7% for the year 2018-19 as under : “18. Which is 66.89% Say 67% of the collected fees and therefore, we have decided the fees and therefore, we have decided the fees at the rate of 67%. Section Proposed fees 2017-2018 Final Determined Fees 2017-2018 Reduced Fee Nursery to Std. 3 68600 45960 22640 Std.4 To Std. 8 77000 51590 25410 Std.9 To 12-Gen. 79800 53470 26330 Std.11 & 12- Sci. 84000 56280 27720 19. For the F. Y. 2018 - 2019, taking into consideration the inflation factor, the FRC has given increment of 7% of the fees to determined for F. Y. 2017 – 2018. And therefore, the fees determined for F. Y. 2018 - 2019 is decided as under : Section Proposed fees 2018- 2019 Final Determined Fees 2018-2019 Reduced Fee Nursery to Std. 3 76832 49180 27652 Std.4 To Std. 8 86240 55200 31040 Std.9 To 12-General 89376 57210 32166 Std.11 & 12- Science 94080 60220 33860 2.6. The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2019, filed Revision Application under Section 12(3) of the Gujarat Self Financed Schools (Regulation of Fees) Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act, 2017’) before the respondent No.2-Revision Committee. 2.7. 8 86240 55200 31040 Std.9 To 12-General 89376 57210 32166 Std.11 & 12- Science 94080 60220 33860 2.6. The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2019, filed Revision Application under Section 12(3) of the Gujarat Self Financed Schools (Regulation of Fees) Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act, 2017’) before the respondent No.2-Revision Committee. 2.7. The respondent No.2-Revision Committee by order dated 4th October, 2019 rejected the Revision Application of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.1-Committee. 3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Patel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.1-Committee passed the order dated 8th August, 2019 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the order determining the final fees passed by the respondent No.1 is in violation of principles of natural justice. 3.2. It was further submitted that the respondent No.1-Committee has passed the order determining the final fees for the year 2017-18 on ad-hoc basis without considering the submissions and objections raised by the petitioner-Institution. It was submitted that though the salary paid by the petitioner-Institution is increased by 16% for the year 2017-18 as compared to the year 2016-17, the respondent No.1-Committee only granted increase of 10% and therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.1-Committee is contrary to the facts on record, more particularly, when the petitioner-Institution has incurred the expenditure on salary but the same is not considered and allowed for the purpose of determination of the fees. 3.3. It was further submitted that the respondent No.1-Committee has also not considered the increase in maintenance due to renovation of the School run by the petitioner-Institution and has only considered the routine maintenance expenditure for disallowing the huge sum of more than Rs.45,00,000/-. 3.4. It was submitted that so far as the rent disallowed by the respondent No.1-Committee, the petitioner-Institution has not raised the issue of rent before the Revision Authority. 3.5. Learned advocate Mr.Patel further submitted that the respondent No.1-Committee has also not considered the actual amount spent towards activity expenses on the ground that no proper justification was placed before the Committee and on an average basis only Rs.30,00,000/- was allowed out of Rs.59,25,000/-. 3.5. Learned advocate Mr.Patel further submitted that the respondent No.1-Committee has also not considered the actual amount spent towards activity expenses on the ground that no proper justification was placed before the Committee and on an average basis only Rs.30,00,000/- was allowed out of Rs.59,25,000/-. It was therefore, submitted that so far as the dis-allowance on account of salary, maintenance and activity is concerned, the respondent No.1-Committee has passed the order determining the final fees for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 only on ad-hoc basis ignoring the objections and data placed on record by the petitioner-Institution, more particularly, the petitioner-Institution was not granted any opportunity of hearing by the respondent No.1- Committee. 3.6. It was further submitted that the Fee Revision Committee has also not considered the issue of opportunity of hearing in proper perspective in as much as the audited accounts were placed before the Revision Committee and Revision Committee ought to have considered such accounts as per Sub-rule 4 of Rule 40 of the Gujarat Self Financed Schools (Regulation of Fees) Rules, 2017. 3.7. It was further submitted that the Revision Authority has taken a decision only considering the maintenance issue and has not taken into consideration the other two issues namely, salary paid to the staff as well as the expenses for activity and rejected the Revision Application filed by the petitioner. 4.1. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Bhagirath Patel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-Fee Regulatory Committee submitted that the Fee Regulatory Committee has given sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which was also considered by the Fee Revision Committee while rejecting the Revision Application of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the data which was available with the Fee Regulatory Committee was taken into consideration and the order was passed after more than 18 months from the date of submission of the proposal by the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was called upon to submit the information and to produce all material in support to justify the fees proposed by the petitioner-Institution vide notice dated 11.05.2018 and as the petitioner-Institution did not produce any further material, the respondent No.1-Committee was constrained to pass the impugned order dated 8th August, 2019 on the basis of the information available on record. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates of the petitioner and the respondent No.1. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates of the petitioner and the respondent No.1. It appears that the petitioner after filing the proposal on 21.03.2018 and after submission of the objection pursuant to the provisional order passed by the respondent No.1- Committee, sought adjournments from time to time. It also emerges from the record that the petitioner-Institution has obtained the audit report on 20th September, 2018 but the same was produced along with the Revision Application filed before the respondent No.2. 6. In such circumstances, in view of the following observations, the order passed by the Fee Revision Committee is not required to be interfered while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India : (5) In so far as the ground regarding opportunity is concerned suffice it to state that the Applicant School was granted sufficient opportunities to present its case. The Applicant School chose to seek adjournments on the ground of proceedings pending before Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India, and ill health of Trustee Shri.N.K.Tiwari. The detailed dates have already been narrated in in paragraph number 2 above. (6) Incidentally it may also be noted that even the Revisional Application has been delayed by a few days and request for condonation of delay has been made on the ground of illness of Trustee Shri. N. K. Tiwari. As the delay is only for a couple of days the same is condoned. (7) The Applicant School should appreciate that illness of one Trustee cannot be a ground or a valid reason for seeking adjournments or delaying the proceedings at different stages from time to time, more so when the illness of the said Trustee continues for a long period of time. There was no stay against proceeding and therefore mere pendency of special leave petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also cannot be made the basis for adjourning the proceedings. The law is well settled that a person cannot make grievance about lack of opportunity if repeated opportunities granted to the said person are not availed of. (8) The grievance of the Applicant School is that FRC Surat Zone committed error in adopting the basis of Provisional Financial Statements. If the Applicant School did not present the Audited accounts before FRC Surat Zone it cannot make grievance on said count. (8) The grievance of the Applicant School is that FRC Surat Zone committed error in adopting the basis of Provisional Financial Statements. If the Applicant School did not present the Audited accounts before FRC Surat Zone it cannot make grievance on said count. In paragraph number 14 of the impugned order FRC Surat Zone has categorically recorded that Audited income and expenditure account for 2017-18 has not been produced, and therefore FRC Surat Zone had to proceed on the basis of projected income and expenditure account produced by the Applicant School. (9) It may be that on 21/03/2018 when the proposal was filed the accounts for 2017-18 had not been audited and could not have been attached with the proposal filed by the Applicant School in FORM II. However, the accounts for 2017-18 were audited and signed on 20/09/2018. The representatives of the Applicant School state that they had made inquiries with FRC Surat Zone through phone calls and e-mails (no details are available on record), and in all appeared before FRC Surat Zone on 15/02/2019. If that the case, nothing prevented the Applicant School from placing audited accounts dated 20/09/2018 before FRC Surat Zone either before 15/02/2019 or at least on 15/02/2019 when the representative of teh Applicant School appeared in person before FRC Surat Zone. (10) Having not produced the document which was in its exclusive possession the Applicant School cannot make a grievance that FRC Surat Zone did not consider the Audited Accounts. (11) In light of aforesaid fact situation there is no question of giving any further opportunity to the Applicant School. Re-working the cost per student on the basis of audited accounts for 2017-18 produced here for the first time would mean giving premium to the default committed by the Applicant School. Therefore, it is not possible to change the basis adopted by FRC Surat Zone only because applicant school has chosen not to produce document within its possession at appropriate time. It is not as if any person or any circumstance prevented the Applicant School from placing the Audited accounts for 2017-18 on record of FRC Surat Zone. The default was of the Applicant School itself of its own volition. It is not as if any person or any circumstance prevented the Applicant School from placing the Audited accounts for 2017-18 on record of FRC Surat Zone. The default was of the Applicant School itself of its own volition. (12) On merits if the figures for four years as appearing in paragraph number 7 of the order are compared it becomes apparent that no valid ground is made out for abnormal increase in the expenses incurred for 2017-18 when compared to immediately preceding year i.e. 2016-17. By way of illustration the maintenance expenses which are shown at Rs. 03,71,000/- for 2014-15 have gone down in 2016-17 to Rs. 03,55,000/-, but for 2017-18 there is an abnormal rise to Rs. 01,36,70,000/-. Even if these figures are treated as projected figures, on comparison of the Audited figures given by the Applicant School in paragraph number 2.1 of the grounds of Revision Application the expenses for maintenance are Rs. 03,55,897/- for 2016-17 which have gone upto Rs. 54,94,324/- for 2017-18.The explanation tendered in this regard in the evidence produced by way of bill dated 19/03/2017 does not inspire confidence. Moreover, the said document was not placed on record before FRC Surat Zone. The explanation that FRC Surat Zone did not call for details is incorrect. The notice dated 11/05/2018 specifically calls upon the Applicant School: “You are requested to bring all materials to support and justify the fees proposed by your school” Therefore, the submission that FRC Surat Zone did not ask for details ‘is factually incorrect. FRC Surat Zone is not required to repeatedly state the same thing merely because the Applicant School sought adjournments time and again. (13) In the aforesaid fact situation it is not necessary to deal with each and every item of expense disallowed for the simple reason that the Applicant School failed to discharge the burden which is on the Applicant School and there is no infirmity in the conduct of proceedings by FRC Surat Zone in the present case. (14) In light of the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record it is not possible to accept any of the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant School. The impugned order dated 08/08/2019 made by FRC Surat Zone does not call for any interference or modification. 7. (14) In light of the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record it is not possible to accept any of the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant School. The impugned order dated 08/08/2019 made by FRC Surat Zone does not call for any interference or modification. 7. In view of the above findings of fact recorded by the Fee Revision Committee, the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, it is clarified that the Fee Regulatory Committee can consider the expenditure incurred by the petitioner during the year 2017- 18 and 2018-19 on the basis of the documentary evidence to be produced by the petitioner while determining the fees for subsequent years in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 2017. 9. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim-relief granted earlier, stands vacated forthwith.