JUDGMENT M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - All the three petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in issuing G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 relating to the fixation of fee structure for under-graduate degree courses in the private unaided degree colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 and direct the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioners to admit students into the under-graduation courses as per the fee structure which is commensurate with the infrastructure and faculty possessed by the respective colleges. 2. As the facts in all these petitions are identical and the respondents filed common counter, I find that it is expedient to decide all these petitions by common order treating the Writ Petition No.1327 of 2021 as leading case. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 is a private unaided under-graduate college situated at Srikakulam, conducting various courses such as B.A., B.Com. and B.Sc, and it has been functional for the last five years as it was established in the year 2016, affiliated to Dr. Ambedkar University, Srikakulam. 4. On 08.01.2021 the Government issued G.O. (un-numbered), by which respondent No.2 - Commission has fixed the fee structure for the under-graduate (UG) degree courses in the private unaided degree colleges in the State, for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23. The State purportedly issued the said Government Order in exercise of the powers under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (State Act No.5 of 1983) by which the State Government has notified the fee for the said block period. 5. The State issued G.O.Ms.No.1 on 08.01.2021 arbitrarily without jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioners questioned the same on the following grounds. (a) The impugned Government order dated 08.01.2021 is issued in exercise of power under Section 7 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act No.5 of 1983). It is contended that the said Act No.5 of 1983 was enacted by the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. (a) The impugned Government order dated 08.01.2021 is issued in exercise of power under Section 7 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act No.5 of 1983). It is contended that the said Act No.5 of 1983 was enacted by the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. As per Section 101 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, the said Act would be in force only for a period of two years from the date of bifurcation of the State (2nd June, 2014) and thereafter the two successor States namely State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh will have to adapt or make new legislations in exercise of the power under Article 246 of the Constitution of India. Act No.5 of 1983 is no longer in force and hence the impugned Government order cannot be issued in exercise of the power under Section 7 of the Act No.5 of 1983. Hence, the impugned G.O. is unsustainable in law. (b) Respondent No.1 has not made/enacted any legislation adapting Act No.5 of 1983 or modifying the said Act. Hence by operation of the provisions of A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, the erstwhile Act No.5 of 1983 was ceased to operate. Hence the impugned Government order is bereft of any legal sanctity/statutory basis and hence the same is liable to be struck down. (c) It is settled law that an executive order of the State is traceable to Article 162 of the Constitution of India. As per the said Article, the executive power of the State is coextensive with its legislative power and not beyond. Thus the executive fiat of the State cannot have larger scope and amplitude than a legislation which has to be correlated to the legislative fields enumerated by list - II and List - III of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. In so far as under graduate courses are concerned, they cannot be construed as professional courses unlike Medicine, Engineering, law and Architecture. Hence, the impugned Government order which is unsupported by a valid legislation, is void and has no legal sanctity. (d) The impugned Government order has categorized the private unaided degree colleges into category - I, category - II and Category - III. It is unknown as to on what basis and parameters the categorization has been done. Hence, the impugned Government order which is unsupported by a valid legislation, is void and has no legal sanctity. (d) The impugned Government order has categorized the private unaided degree colleges into category - I, category - II and Category - III. It is unknown as to on what basis and parameters the categorization has been done. Similarly it is un -understandable as to on what basis the specific gross amount has been specified as the annual fees in respect of different under-graduate courses. The impugned Government order prescribing the annual fee for the private Aided degree colleges in respect of the under- graduate courses, is manifestly arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in "Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) AIR SC 4609" (Triple Talaq case), has laid down that even a legislation is liable to be struck down if it is manifestly arbitrary since the manifest arbitrariness would offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court works on a better footing in so far as the executive order of the State like the impugned Government order also. (e) The managements of the private un-aided degree colleges were not given any notice or opportunity before the fixation of fee or issuance of the impugned Government order. No stake holders or experts were consulted and no factual data has been taken into account as regards the infrastructure and faculty of each of the private unaided degree colleges before fixing a slab rate of annual fee for them under the un-understandable three categories. It is not known as to how the categorization has been done and the fixation of annual fee is arrived at. The entire exercise contained in the impugned Government order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. (f) Establishment of private aided degree colleges is governed by the A.P. Education Act, 1982 in addition to the affiliation granted by the jurisdictional university. The right to establish and run an unaided under-graduate course (degree colleges) cannot be controlled or regulated by the State Government under any legislation. Thus, the impugned Government order which is only an executive order, cannot deprive the fundamental right contained in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India to the persons who establish and run the degree colleges. Thus, the impugned Government order which is only an executive order, cannot deprive the fundamental right contained in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India to the persons who establish and run the degree colleges. Hence, the impugned Government order is not only arbitrary but also un-constitutional being violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. (g) The annual fee prescribed by the impugned Government order is hardly sufficient for running the degree colleges in an effective and efficient manner. Each private degree college has its own infrastructure and qualified staff etc. without any analysis and verification of the infrastructure and staff position/calibre of the teaching and non-teaching staff, the impugned Government order has been issued in utter disregard of the prospects of the students which is essentially linked to the educational facilities which are available in the given degree college. The Government degree colleges stand altogether on a different premise and many students do not relish to join Government degree colleges and prefer admission into the private degree colleges which are more popular and more successful from the point of view of possessing the infrastructure and staff facilities. Thus the impugned Government order is patently arbitrary and irrational. (h) Pursuant to the impugned Government order, the A.P. State Council of Higher Education has issued a notification for online admission for the academic year 2020 - 21 in so far as the private degree colleges are concerned to the effect that the certificate verification will be conducted from 06.01.2021 to 12.01.2021 and the admissions into private degree colleges would be based on such verification of certificate of intermediate or equivalent examination. Thus the students are deprived of their choice of seeking admission into private degree colleges and a centralized system through the State Council of Higher Education is introduced for conducting a merit ranking on the basis of the marks secured in the intermediate examination. This methodology which is being adopted is equally arbitrary and baseless. The State cannot introduce the centralized system of admission into the private degree colleges by depriving the choice of the students/parents to seek admission into the private college of their own choice. 6. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the State did not adopt the Act 5 of 1983, the fixation of fee on the basis of the Act 5 of 1983 is illegal. 6. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the State did not adopt the Act 5 of 1983, the fixation of fee on the basis of the Act 5 of 1983 is illegal. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.1dated 08.01.2021 is hit by doctrine of ultra vires, on this ground alone the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be set aside declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, requested to allow the writ petitions. 7. Respondents filed common counter in all the writ petitions admitting about issue of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 fixing fee for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 for the Under Graduate (UG) Degree courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No.2 - Commission met on 18.06.2020, 23.06.2020, 29.06.2020 and 16.10.2020, thereby recorded minutes and finally communicated the fee recommendations to respondent No.1 vide Lr.No.683/APHERMC/ADMN/2020 dated 29.10.2020. On the basis of the said recommendations, notification in G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 issued by respondent No.1, which is under challenge. 8. It is the specific contention of the respondents that as per Section 2 (5) of the A.P.Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Act, 2019 (for short "Act No.20 of 2019"), "Higher Educational Institution" means any institution of education beyond the secondary school level (Grade 12) that awards or leads to award a degree, diploma, certificate or other academic distinction at any level in any filed or discipline. That apart under Section 9 (b) of then Act 20 of 2019, respondent No.2 - Commission has power to monitor and regulate the fee of the Higher Educational Institutions in accordance with the Rules, Regulations, Guidelines and procedures, prescribed for the purpose. Therefore, respondent No.2 - Commission exercising power under Chapter - III read with Section 2 (5) of the Act 20 of 2019 made recommendations, and the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 was passed in pursuance of the recommendations after following due procedure. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that respondent No.2 has powers only to regulate professional courses is totally devoid of any merit and substance and such interpretation is totally misdirected and misconstrued. 9. Respondent No.2 extracted the relevant minutes of the committee, but to avoid repetition, those minutes will be considered at appropriate stage while deciding the issues. 10. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that respondent No.2 has powers only to regulate professional courses is totally devoid of any merit and substance and such interpretation is totally misdirected and misconstrued. 9. Respondent No.2 extracted the relevant minutes of the committee, but to avoid repetition, those minutes will be considered at appropriate stage while deciding the issues. 10. It is specifically contended that in W.P.No.1327 of 2021, it has come to light that as per proceedings of A.P. State Council for Higher Education (APSCHE) in R.C.No.APSCHE/Acad Cell/Unauthorised shifting/BRAU/2020 dated 03.07.2020 and as per inspection report of Fact Finding Committee for the year 2019-20 by the concerned University, it is clear that the petitioner college is running by violating the Rules and Regulations of the Competent Authority with the following irregularities; 1. Land shown in Palasa, whereas the College is sanctioned in Srikakulam Town, 2. The College is sanctioned in Srikakulam town, the management applied for shifting to Kasibugga. The final G.O. is not yet issued. 11. Thus, the petitioner college has violated the Rule 14(3) of G.O.Ms.No.29 Education (Rules) dated 05.02.1987. 12. The petitioner college (W.P.No.1327 of 2021) did not pay the processing fee or got registered for fee fixation before respondent No.2 Commission as per the notification issued on 29.01.2020. Hence, the question of the said college submitting data as prescribed does not arise and further scrutiny if any did not take place for this reason. Thus, no fee is fixed for the petitioner college in W.P.No.1327 of 2021. Without revealing these facts, following due procedure prescribed by the 2nd respondent - Commission, the petitioner - college approached this Court making all kinds of unscrupulous allegations against the respondents herein with unclean hands. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In so far as the writ petitioner college in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 is concerned, it is submitted that though notification to upload data in 21 schedules was given on 29.01.2020 and repeated reminders were given till June, 2020, out of 1130 colleges 270 colleges did not upload the data till 20.07.2020 (05:00 p.m.) and the petitioner college is one among 270 colleges who did not upload the data as per the notification issued by respondent No.2 Commission. In fact an email was addressed on 27.07.2020 at 02:00 p.m. to all the 270 colleges along with the attachment reminding them to pay the processing fee and get registered for fee fixation, but not to upload the data or fill the performance indicator sheet. Though the petitioner college paid the processing fee on 22.05.2020 and got registered but failed to upload the data. Therefore, the question of respondent No.2 -Commission scrutinizing any data and recommend appropriate fee did not arise in such cases. 14. In so far as the petitioner college in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 is concerned it is submitted that the petitioner paid the processing fee and uploaded the data partly as prescribed in the schedule formats, who is put in Category-II as per the performance sheet of quality parameters assessment. 15. It is further contended that the impugned G.O. dated 08.01.2021 issued under Section 7 of Act 5 of 1983 read with Section 101 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 is very much valid in law. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the Act 5 of 1983 was not adopted, in the absence of adoption, the fee fixation is illegal and without any substance, on this ground the petitions cannot be allowed, requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 16. The respondents further contended that respondent No.2 - Commission proposed to fix the fee for UG and PG courses in the Degree Colleges for the first time. In fact, till 2019-20, the concerned Universities used to fix the fee for the affiliated colleges under their purview, the tuition fee varied from Rs.6,550/- to Rs.16,080/- (B.A. Course), from Rs.7,965 /- to Rs.16,080/ - (B.Com Course) and from Rs.9,500 to Rs.18,320/- (B.Sc Course) under different Universities and as such there was no uniform categorization or recommendation of fee fixation was done hitherto. Therefore, as per the Rules and the Regulations of the APHERMC, the respondent No.2 - Commission has issued notification calling fee proposals from the Degree Colleges in Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the respondent Commission has designed a format relating to quality parameters and directed the managements of colleges to submit the data as required in the format. Thereafter as per the rational and scientific procedure being followed by respondent No.2 - Commission, it has identified auditors to scrutinize the financial data uploaded by the College Managements. Accordingly, the respondent Commission has designed a format relating to quality parameters and directed the managements of colleges to submit the data as required in the format. Thereafter as per the rational and scientific procedure being followed by respondent No.2 - Commission, it has identified auditors to scrutinize the financial data uploaded by the College Managements. Methodological scale is prepared taking into consideration all the quality parameters as indicated by UGC and MHRD, institutes of potential excellence. In fact the parameters as suggested by the UGC for Institutes of Potential excellence has been taken as yardstick and circulated to the colleges. That apart the Private UG and PG Aided Colleges Management Welfare Association - Andhra Pradesh (PACWA) vide its letter dated 15.06.2020 represented to follow various parameters as suggested by the UGC. The Members of respondent No.2 - Commission, who are experts in Academics have verified the academic data including the quality parameters submitted by the colleges, including petitioner-colleges. Accordingly, Scores/Points are given to colleges based on the quality parameters like NAAC accreditation, pass percentage, placements, seminars/work-shops conducted, etc. After examining the academic, financial data and the scores obtained through quality parameters, the colleges in the state are classified as Category-I, Category-II and Category-III in order to create healthy competition among the colleges. That apart respondent No.2 Commission obtained the information relating to the existing fee from the respective 10 State Universities. Thereafter, the average fee is calculated based on the data provided by the Universities. Then as per the principle adopted by the Commission, 10% is added to the average fee for Category-I colleges and reduced 10% (-10%) for Category-III colleges. The average fee has been maintained for Category-II Colleges and arrived at the fee per course. In fact, there are only 9 courses run by colleges at Under-Graduate level; a perusal of fee fixation under the impugned G.O., makes it clear that the variation between Category-I to III is very marginal, for Category-I colleges the fee varied from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, for Category-II colleges the fee varied from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.27,000/- and for Category-III colleges the fee varied from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.24,000/- for different courses in each Category. 17. The contention that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to fix fee is without any basis. 17. The contention that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to fix fee is without any basis. It is also further contended that one of the colleges has questioned G.O.Ms.No.34, Higher Education (C.E.) Department dated 15.10.2020 with regard to online counselling by way of writ petition No.22104 of 2020 and the same was dismissed by this Court. 18. It is further contended that the contention raised by the petitioners that no notice is given to each petitioner is totally false and the same is denied by the respondents. In fact, the notices were given by display in the website of the respondent Commission since 29.01.2020 till 31.07.2020 enabling the petitioners to upload the data in 21 schedules but on the contrary, majority of the colleges including the petitioner-colleges did not upload the data properly or in-totality to examine the fee proposals effectively by respondent No.2 Commission. Finally, the respondent No.2 - Commission issued notices of personal hearing on 15.06.2020 and on 17.06.2020 inviting the members of the Associations of colleges to attend on 18.06.2020 at 11:00 a.m. during the Covid-19 situation following SOP Norms. Accordingly, all the representatives of A.P. Private Un-Aided Degree and PG Colleges Association, attended to personal hearing, duly signed their presence and made representations before the respondent No.2 -Commission to fix a reasonable fee. In fact, Adikavi Nannaya University Affiliated Private UG/PG Colleges Management Association-Rajahmundry vide their representation dated 27.02.2020 expressed their inability and hardship faced in providing data as per the Schedules prescribed to fix fee structure on behalf of the Managements of the Degree Colleges. Similar oral representations were made by the other Associations of degree colleges from other regions. Therefore, the contention that no notice was issued to the petitioners - colleges is without any merit and that the fee recommended by respondent No.2 and notified by respondent No.1 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such there are no merits in the writ petitions, requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 19. Therefore, the contention that no notice was issued to the petitioners - colleges is without any merit and that the fee recommended by respondent No.2 and notified by respondent No.1 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such there are no merits in the writ petitions, requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 19. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, during hearing, specifically raised the following contentions: (1) Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (State Act No.5 of 1983) was not adopted after bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh by specific regulation, thereby the question of fixing fee for under Graduate courses in the private aided colleges by respondent No.2 is illegal. (2) The rules specifically says that notices have to be issued to each of the colleges, but no notices were served personally to the colleges and it is in violation of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 issued in G.O.Ms.No.49 Higher Education (U.E) Department dated 11.10.2019, thereby the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is hit by doctrine of procedural ultra vires. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in "The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Ranchi v. Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals Private Limited, (2004) 6 SCC 689 " and "the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lafarge Dealers Association, (2019) 7 SCC 584 " (3) Categorisation of colleges into three categories is not based on any rule and that such categorisation is arbitrary, in support of his contentions, he placed reliance on "Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 ." (4) Finally, it is contended that it is for the State to notify the recommendations if it is satisfied with the recommendations made by respondent No.2 - Commission, but in the present facts of the cases, based on such recommendations even without examining the legality of the recommendations, respondent No.1 notified the same by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021. Therefore, the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and requested to set aside the same. 20. Therefore, the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and requested to set aside the same. 20. Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, during hearing, raised the following contentions: (1) The State of Andhra Pradesh is a residuary State and the laws of the State are applicable to the residuary State and no specific Act or regulation is required to be passed adopting the laws by the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh. (2) When notice is displayed in the website of the respondent No.2 - Commission, no personal notice or communication need be issued and Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 did not lay down any specific procedure for service of notice except stating that notice to each college to be served. Therefore, based on the noticed displayed in the website of respondent No.2 - Commission several colleges submitted information, the petitioner in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 also submitted information partially, consequently on the ground of failure to issue notice or communication, the recommendations made by respondent No.2 and Government Order issued based on such recommendations cannot be set aside on the ground of procedural ultra vires. (3) It is also contended that though there is no rule authorising respondent No.2 for categorisation of colleges, for convenience to fix fee, respondent No.2 - Commission categorised colleges into 3' and made recommendations fixing fee for Under Graduate courses and there is absolutely no irregularity, on that ground the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 cannot be set aside, requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 21. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arose for consideration are: (1) Whether personal notice/communication need be served on the colleges in terms of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 in view of the language employed in the said Rule? If not, whether failure to serve notice/communication personally on the colleges is violative of clause (1) and (3) of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019? If so, does it amount to procedural ultra vires? Consequently, the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be struck down on that ground? (2) Whether rules permit categorisation of colleges into 3' or more? If not, whether the fixation of fee after categorisation of colleges into 3' is sustainable? If so, does it amount to procedural ultra vires? Consequently, the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be struck down on that ground? (2) Whether rules permit categorisation of colleges into 3' or more? If not, whether the fixation of fee after categorisation of colleges into 3' is sustainable? Consequently, whether the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be set aside by declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary? (3) Whether the residuary State is required to adopt laws on bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into two States? If so, whether the exercise undertaken by respondent No.2 for fixation of fee under Act 5 of 1983 and consequently, G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be set aside? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 22. As the point Nos.1 and 2 are interconnected with one another, I find that it is appropriate to decide both these points by common discussion. 23. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.2 made recommendations fixing fee for various courses in higher educational institutions and the same is notified by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 fixing fee, to be collected by the authorities for various courses for the block period of academic years 2020-21 to 2022-23. The first and foremost contention raised by Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is that the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 (for short "Rules 2019") is not followed, thereby the recommendations made by respondent No.2 and notified by respondent No.1 is violative of procedure, therefore it is hit by procedural ultra vires. One of the major contentions raised by the petitioners before this Court is that intimation as required under Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 was not complied, so also respondent No.2 did not call for proposals with regard to proposed fee to be collected by the higher educational institutions as required under clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. Instead of following the procedure prescribed under clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019, respondent No.2 itself made proposals fixing fee and recommended the same to respondent No.1, who in turn notified the same by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021. 24. Instead of following the procedure prescribed under clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019, respondent No.2 itself made proposals fixing fee and recommended the same to respondent No.1, who in turn notified the same by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021. 24. Whereas Sri C. Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 specifically contended that notification was issued calling for information and the same was displayed in the website of respondent No.2 herein. Later several notifications were issued and displayed in the website of respondent No.2 extending time for submission of schedules prescribed under Rules, thereby the respondents did not violate any rules and respondent No.2 is not required to issue notice or intimation to individual higher educational institutions before fixing fee payable for various courses in the institutions. Therefore, respondent No.2 substantially complied with the procedure prescribed under clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. At the same time, some of the higher educational institutions submitted their proposed fee structure and that only after holding meetings with the associations and colleges, respondent No.2 fixed fee for various courses in the institutions. 25. Before deciding violation of any of the clauses of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019, it is appropriate to state the scope and jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with such administrative actions, more particularly when it relates to economic matters pertaining to colleges based on policy decisions. The scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with such quasi-judicial actions of respondent No.2, which were accepted by respondent No.1 under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is limited and this Court can interfere with such decisions only when the recommendations were made in utter deviation of procedure prescribed under the Rules or such recommendations made by respondent No.2 and notified by respondent No.1 in violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited and interference with such orders as a matter of routine is impermissible. 26. Judicial review, as is well known, lies against the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Thus, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited and interference with such orders as a matter of routine is impermissible. 26. Judicial review, as is well known, lies against the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. If the decision-making process is flawed inter alia by violation of the basic principles of natural justice, is ultra-vires the powers of the decision maker, takes into consideration irrelevant materials or excludes relevant materials, admits materials behind the back of the person to be affected or is such that no reasonable person would have taken such a decision in the circumstances, the court may step in to correct the error by setting aside such decision and requiring the decision maker to take a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The court, in the garb of judicial review, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the decision maker and make the decision itself. Neither can it act as an appellate authority or the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission, respondent No.2 herein. 27. In "Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568 ", the Apex Court observed as follows: "We certainly agree that judicial interference with the administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquieu system of separation of powers. The court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the directorate of a government company has acted fairly, even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot, as a super auditor, take the Board of Directors to task. This function is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by Rules of public administration." (Emphasis supplied) 28. Judicial restraint in exercise of judicial review was considered in "the State of (NCT) of Delhi v. Sanjeev, (2005) 5 SCC 181 " as follows: "One can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground is "illegality", the second "irrationality", and the third "procedural impropriety". These principles were highlighted by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (commonly known as CCSU case). The first ground is "illegality", the second "irrationality", and the third "procedural impropriety". These principles were highlighted by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (commonly known as CCSU case). If the power has been exercised on a non-consideration or non-application of mind to relevant factors, the exercise of power will be regarded as manifestly erroneous. If a power (whether legislative or administrative) is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power will stand vitiated." (Emphasis supplied) 29. It needs no emphasis that complex executive decisions in economic matters are necessarily empiric and based on experimentation. Its validity cannot be tested on any rigid principles or the application of any straitjacket formula. The court while adjudging the validity of an executive decision in economic matters must grant certain measure of freedom or play in the joints to the executive. Not mere errors, but only palpably arbitrary decisions alone can be interfered with in judicial review. The recommendation made by a statutory body consisting of domain experts not being to the satisfaction of the State Government or to the higher educational institutions is an entirely different matter with which I am not concerned in the present discussion. The Court should therefore be loath to interfere with such recommendation of an expert body, and accepted by the government, unless it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or violates any provisions of the law under which it is constituted. The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority, entering the arena of disputed facts and figures to opine with regard to manner in which respondent No.2 ought to have proceeded without any finding of any violation of Rules or procedure. If a statutory body has not exercised jurisdiction properly the only option is to remand the matter for fresh consideration and not to usurp the powers of the authority. 30. In "Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343 ", it was observxc b yujed as follows: "The function of the court is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must act reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts." (Emphasis supplied) 31. In the context of Indian jurisprudence, the Constitution is the supreme law. All executive or legislative actions have to be tested on the anvil of the same. Such actions will have to draw their sustenance as also their boundaries under the same. Any action falling foul of the constitutional guarantees will call for corrective action in judicial review to ensure adherence to the constitutional ethos. But so long as the fabric of the constitutional ethos is not set as under, the Court will have to exercise restraint, more particularly in matters concerning domain experts, else the risk of justice being based on individual perceptions which may render myths as realities inconsistent with the constitutional ethos. Courts often adjudicate disputes that raise the question of how strictly should they scrutinise executive or legislative action. Therefore, courts have identified certain questions as being inappropriate for judicial resolution or have refused on competency grounds to substitute their judgment for that of another person on a particular matter. 32. The need for judicial restraint with regard to recommendations of expert committees, more particularly in matters relating to finance and economics, was considered by the Apex Court in "BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 " and held: "Nevertheless, contention is sought to be raised that the method of valuation was faulty, some assets were not taken into consideration and that Rs. 551.5 crores offered by M/s. Sterlite did not represent the correct value of 51% shares of the Company along with its controlling interest. It is not for this Court to consider whether the price which was fixed by the Evaluation Committee at Rs. 551.5 crores was correct or not. 551.5 crores offered by M/s. Sterlite did not represent the correct value of 51% shares of the Company along with its controlling interest. It is not for this Court to consider whether the price which was fixed by the Evaluation Committee at Rs. 551.5 crores was correct or not. What has to be seen in exercise of judicial review of administrative action is to examine whether proper procedure has been followed and whether the reserve price which was fixed is arbitrarily low and on the face of it, unacceptable." (Emphasis supplied) 33. In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the Courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the Court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself. 34. Noting the above principles, the Apex Court in "Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association v. State of Telangana, (2019) 7 SCC 172 " categorically held that the Court has to maintain judicial restraint while dealing with the economic policy decision of the State. The Courts cannot interfere with those decisions unless those decisions are taken in violation of principles of natural justice or in violation of any rule authorising such authorities to take such decision. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited and this Court has to examine, keeping in view the principles laid down in the above judgments, whether there is any procedural violation or violation of principles of natural justice as contended by the petitioners herein. 35. The Rules 2019 are framed for functioning of respondent No.2 for fixation of fee for various courses in the higher educational institutions to be collected by those institutions and with an avowed object of regulating and monitoring collection of fee without any profit; to maintain standard of education based on the fee the institution collected. Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 deals with "Fee regulation". "8. Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 deals with "Fee regulation". "8. Fee Regulation (1) The Commission shall call for, from each Institution, its proposed fee structure well in advance before the date of issue of notification for admission for the academic year along with all the relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny; (2) The Commission shall decide whether the fees proposed by the institutions is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee; (3) The Commission shall be at the liberty to approve or alter the proposed fee for each course to be charged by the Institution; Provided that it shall give the Institution an opportunity of being heard before fixing any fee or fees; (4) The Commission shall take into consideration the following factors while prescribing the fee; (a) The location of the Higher Educational Institution, (b) The nature of the course, (c) The cost of available infrastructure, (d) The expenditure on administration and maintenance, (e) A reasonable surplus required for growth and development of the Higher Educational Institutions, (f) The revenue foregone on account of waiver of fee, if any, in respect of students belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and wherever applicable to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and other Economically Weaker Sections of the Society, to such extent as shall be notified by the Government from time to time, (g) Any other relevant factor. (5) The Commission shall communicate the fee structure as determined by it, to the Government, for notification under Act 5 of 1983; (6) The fee or scale of the fee determined by the Commission shall be valid for a period of three years; (7) The fee so determined shall be applicable to a candidate who is admitted to an institution in that academic year and shall not be altered till the completion of his/her course in the institution in which he/she was originally admitted. The Higher Educational Institutions shall not club and/or collect a fee which is more than the amount prescribed for that Academic year;" 36. The procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of Rules 2019 has to be strictly adhered to by respondent No.2 while making recommendations fixing fee for various courses. Violation of any of the clauses of Rule 8 warrants interference of this Court in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments (referred supra). 37. The procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of Rules 2019 has to be strictly adhered to by respondent No.2 while making recommendations fixing fee for various courses. Violation of any of the clauses of Rule 8 warrants interference of this Court in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments (referred supra). 37. The core contention of Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is that respondent No.2 shall call for, from each institution, its proposed fee structure well in advance before the date of issue of notification for admission for the academic year along with all the relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny. But the same was not complied with by respondent No.2 as mandated in clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules, 2019. Failure to call for proposed fee structure well in advance from each of the institutions is a violation of clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. If respondent No.2 failed to comply with the same, recommendations made by it would vitiate by procedural ultra vires, thereby this Court can interfere with such recommendations made by respondent No.2, notified by respondent No.1. 38. Respondents in their common counter specifically averred that the petitioners did not comply with the requirement prescribed in clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 though the respondents sought for information from the petitioners. 39. It is specifically contended by the respondents that the petitioner in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 allegedly shifted the college to Palasa though the college was sanctioned in Srikakulam, in violation of Rule 14(3) of G.O.Ms.No.29 Education (Rules) dated 05.02.1987. The petitioner college (W.P.No.1327 of 2021) did not pay the processing fee or got registered for fee fixation before respondent No.2 Commission as per the notification issued on 29.01.2020. Hence, the petitioner in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 is not competent to question the recommendations made by respondent No.2, notified by respondent No.1 fixing fee to be collected, without disclosing those facts. 40. Hence, the petitioner in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 is not competent to question the recommendations made by respondent No.2, notified by respondent No.1 fixing fee to be collected, without disclosing those facts. 40. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 did not comply with the requirement though notification to upload data in 21 schedules was given on 29.01.2020 and repeated reminders were given till June, 2020, out of 1130 colleges 270 colleges did not upload the data till 20.07.2020 (05:00 p.m.) and the petitioner college is one among 270 colleges who did not upload the data as per the notification issued by respondent No.2 Commission. In fact an email was addressed on 27.07.2020 at 02:00 p.m. to all the 270 colleges along with the attachment reminding them to pay the processing fee and get registered for fee fixation, but not to upload the data or fill the performance indicator sheet. Though the petitioner college paid processing fee on 22.05.2020 and got registered, but failed to upload the data. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 is disentitled to claim any relief in the writ petition. 41. So far as the petitioner college in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner paid the processing fee and uploaded the data partly as prescribed in the schedule formats, who is put in Category-II as per the performance sheet of quality parameters assessment. Thus, all the petitioners failed to follow the procedure prescribed in the notifications issued by the respondents from time to time; thereby they are disentitled to claim any relief in the present petitions. 42. In view of the rival contentions regarding violation and non-compliance of Rule 8 (1) of the Rules 2019, it is appropriate to advert to the notifications issued by respondent No.2 to find out whether respondent No.2 strictly adhered to the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 (1) of the Rules 2019. The first notification was issued on 29.01.2020 calling for certain information and the same is extracted hereunder. NOTIFICATION "The Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission (APHER&MC) proposes to review and determine fee structure for UG and PG Degree programmes; UG and PG Law programmes, UG and PG Physical Education programmes in Private Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23. NOTIFICATION "The Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission (APHER&MC) proposes to review and determine fee structure for UG and PG Degree programmes; UG and PG Law programmes, UG and PG Physical Education programmes in Private Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23. The Managements of all Private Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh are hereby required to submit relevant data, together with their Audited Financial Statements for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, in the prescribed schedules, online at http://aphermc.ap.gov.in. Submissions can be made from 10.02.2020 onwards as per the guidelines available in the APHER&MC website. The data shall be furnished programme-wise, after payment of processing charges, as prescribed in the guide lines through online payment gateway. The Institutions which do not propose any fee proposals or not responsive shall not be permitted to collect any fee for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 for the said programmes. The last date for online submission of data is 09.03.2020 at 05.00 p.m. Tadepalli, Dated 29.01.2020. Member Secretary A.P.Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission 43. This notification is in the nature of general notification. It was not served or communicated to each higher educational institution. The language employed in clause (1) of Rule 8 of Rules 2019 indicates that communication shall be sent to each educational institution, call for information from each institution, its proposed fee structure well in advance before the date of issue of notification. The word "shall call for, from each institution" assumes importance to interpret the intention of the legislature in employing such language in clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. 44. As seen from the language employed therein, respondent No.2 shall call for information from each institution including proposed fee structure well in advance, how such information be called for is not known. When the information is to be called from each institution, it must be by communication to each institution. 45. It is the obligation on the part of respondent No.2 to call for, from each institution, its proposed fee structure well in advance along with relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny. The mandatory requirement under clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 is that it is the duty of respondent No.2 to call for proposed fee structure by informing each of the institutions. The mandatory requirement under clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 is that it is the duty of respondent No.2 to call for proposed fee structure by informing each of the institutions. As seen from the notification dated 29.01.2020, respondent No.2 did not call for information specifically, except requiring the institutions to submit relevant data together with audited financial statements for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, in the prescribed schedules, online at http://aphermc.ap.gov.in, on or before 09.03.2020 at 05.00 p.m. 46. The requirement specified in the notification does not indicate that the petitioner - institutions are under obligation to submit its proposed fee structure, but the information was uploaded in the website of respondent No.2 in different proformas. 47. Similarly, another document was issued in the name and style as "important" on 28.02.2020 reducing the processing fee from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per programme for UG and PG Degree programmes (B.Sc., B.A., M.Sc., M.A., etc.) on the request made by the Andhra Pradesh Private Degree Colleges Management Association dated 27.02.2020. This intimation was not given to any of the institutions individually and it is not known whether it was displayed in the website of respondent No.2. But in the last line of the said document it is mentioned that "for further information check the guidelines on the website http://aphermc.ap.gov.in" and directed them to pay the processing fee accordingly. 48. Later, a notice dated 04.03.2020 was issued extending time up to 21.03.2020 for submitting data relating to UG and PG degree programmes and UG and PG Law Programmes and UG and PG physical education programmes, in view of the request made by the managements. 49. Finally, on 20.07.2020 intimation was given to all Private Engineering, Pharmacy, MBA, MCA, B.Ed., M.Ed., LPT and UG and PG Degree, Law, Nursing and Physiotherapy Colleges etc. in Andhra Pradesh that sufficient time has already been given to college managements to upload the data online extending the last date from time to time up to 07.07.2020, without penalty. In the said notice, it was also mentioned that public notice dated 10.07.2020 was issued directing the college managements to pay a penalty of 3 times of the processing fee and upload the data up to 20.07.2020. In the said notice, it was also mentioned that public notice dated 10.07.2020 was issued directing the college managements to pay a penalty of 3 times of the processing fee and upload the data up to 20.07.2020. Keeping in view of the request of different college Management Associations, the last date with penalty is extended upto 31.07.2020 and directed to pay a penalty of two (2) times of the processing fee to the credit of account No.62267545701, State Bank of India, Tadepalli Branch, Tadepalli, Guntur District, and upload the data online on or before 31.07.2020 (05.00 p.m.). Public notices were issued styled as "attention", "important" etc. 50. The respondents though contended that they complied with requirements under clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019, did not place any material before this Court evidencing service of those notices on the petitioners or communicating the said information. 51. The petitioner in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 did not pay processing fee, whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 paid processing fee, but failed to submit schedules, and the petitioner in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 paid processing fee and submitted schedules partly. Therefore, the plea of failure to issue notice to individual colleges calling for proposed fee structure for various courses is not available to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2210 and 2629 of 2021 since they paid processing fee and the petitioner in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 submitted schedules partly. The petitioner in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 can raise such plea of failure to issue notice or communication to individual colleges. 52. A close analysis of clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019, it is abundantly clear that communication has to be issued to each college individually calling for proposed fee structure for various courses, but no such procedure is followed as required under Rule 8 (1) of the Act. 53. On the other hand, respondent No.2 prepared its own fee structure and recommended the same to respondent No.1 herein, who in turn notified the same. No communication was sent to various colleges individually though Rule 8 (1) mandates calling for proposed fee structure from individual institution. Therefore, it is a clear violation of the procedure prescribed under the Act. 53. On the other hand, respondent No.2 prepared its own fee structure and recommended the same to respondent No.1 herein, who in turn notified the same. No communication was sent to various colleges individually though Rule 8 (1) mandates calling for proposed fee structure from individual institution. Therefore, it is a clear violation of the procedure prescribed under the Act. At the same time, time was extended from time to time, almost for a period of 10 months and reduced registration fee from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- for different courses, but for one reason or the other, the same has not been communicated to any of the colleges individually, except displaying of those notifications in the website of respondent No.2. Display of notification in the website calling for information etc., is not permitted under the Rules either impliedly or expressly. Therefore, in the absence of power conferred on respondent No.2, displaying notifications and notices in the website of respondent No.2 without communicating the same to individual colleges would amount to violation of the procedure since the petitioners in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 is not supposed to know about the notifications issued from time to time unless the petitioner logged to the website of respondent No.2. Similarly, petitioners in W.P.Nos.2210 and 2629 of 2021 though aware about the calling for proposed fee structure, not aware of the time extended on different dates. Therefore, they could not complete the process of submission of fee structure along with 21 schedules prescribed under the Rules. 54. Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that as per the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in "Consortium of Engineering Colleges Managements Association (CECMA), Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 3 ALT 686 (DB)" display of notices in the website of respondent No.2 is sufficient. On perusal of said judgment, I find no such observation or upholding of such action of respondent No.2 in the said judgment. On perusal of said judgment, I find no such observation or upholding of such action of respondent No.2 in the said judgment. The learned Judges of the Division Bench issued several guidelines, which are as follows: "(i) Section-7 of the Capitation Fee Act (insofar as Regulations issued thereunder pertain to private unaided educational institutions -whether minority or non-minority), enables issue of Regulation of fee structure proposed by an educational institution, only insofar as modification or alteration of the proposed fee structure is to ensure that the institution does not indulge in profiteering or collection of capitation fee. Section -7 does not enable the State itself to fix and notify a fee structure; that would impermissibly trench upon the operational autonomy of self-financing educational institution/s; (ii) Section-7 enacts a power coupled with a corresponding obligation on the State. Therefore, appropriate Regulations must be issued and executed to ensure oversight and excision of profiteering or collection of capitation fee by every private unaided educational institution. Consequently, neither the State nor its instrumentality -the AFRC, may recommend or notify a fee structure or permit collection of fee by any unaided private educational institution that does not submit its fee proposals together with the relevant data (of income and expenditure, developmental needs and audited books of accounts, for verification and scrutiny; (iii) Since cross-subsidy of the fee payable by one class of students by the other is unconstitutional and thus impermissible, the AFRC while calling for applications for recommending the fee structure; and the State Government while notifying the fee structure shall not call for or notify differential fee structure for different classes of seats, whether called 'A' or 'B' categories or otherwise, which does not represent the per capita cost and therefore incorporates elements of cross-subsidy; (iv) The fee chargeable from every student admitted to a specific course of study in a specific discipline in each private unaided educational institution shall reflect the per capita cost of such education, on the parameters enumerated in Rule -(iv), clauses (a) to (e) & (g) of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 6, Higher Education Department, dated 08-01-2007 (The AFRC Rules); (v) The AFRC may recommend and the State Government notify a higher fee for students admitted to 15% of the sanctioned intake in each course of study in each private unaided educational institution (presently categorized as NRI/NRI sponsored); so however that the higher (over and above the fee fixed for generality of seats whether called 'A' category or 'B' category) fee so collected shall be deposited by the private educational institution in a separate account to be employed for the benefit of students from economically weaker sections of society, whom, on well-defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidized payment of their fee. To regulate proper utilization and audit of the amount in this separate account, the State shall issue specific regulation and till such regulation is issued, the AFRC may formulate guidelines for identifying the class or category of students in whose favour the fee subsidy or waiver may be made, duly specifying the criteria for identifying such student or class of students and the manner in which the funds from this special account shall be deployed; (vi) The AFRC while issuing a notification calling for fee proposals shall clearly specify that such proposals should incorporate a uniform fee for all category of students, whether admitted to 'A' or 'B' categories and that the proposals may indicate the higher fee proposed to be charged from NRI/NRI sponsored candidates (and to the limit of 15% of the sanctioned intake) for each course of study in each private unaided educational institution; (vii) Clause (f) of Rule - (iv) of the AFRC rules impairs the operational autonomy available to private unaided educational institutions, as delineated in the judgments of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation, Islamic Academy of Education and PA Inamdar, and is declared invalid; (viii) The AFRC shall specify in the notification to be issued (calling for fee proposals from private unaided educational institutions) that an institution which is unresponsive or does not submit statements of income and expenditure, audited balance sheets, and requirements for developmental needs for the immediately preceding year; particulars of expenditure incurred on salaries and infrastructure and other particulars as may be specified (with supporting bills, vouchers or receipts, etc.), shall not be permitted to collect any fee. While notifying a fee structure, exercising power under Section - 7 of the Capitation Fee Act, the State shall record a similar stipulation; (ix) The AFRC is required to recommend and the State Government notify institution-specific fee structure and for the generic variety of institutions offering different courses of study. While notifying a fee structure, exercising power under Section - 7 of the Capitation Fee Act, the State shall record a similar stipulation; (ix) The AFRC is required to recommend and the State Government notify institution-specific fee structure and for the generic variety of institutions offering different courses of study. Therefore, the AFRC shall issue notification(s) calling for fee proposals well-in-advance of commencement of the academic year (whether for fixing block fee structure, applicable for three academic years or revising fee structure already notified for any particular academic year), by the first week of December preceding the relevant academic year for which the fee structure notification or revision is to be issued by the State Government; (x) Where the AFRC considers it appropriate to outsource the administrative function of vetting or verification of fee proposals received from the several private unaided educational institutions (whether to a chartered accountant firm or otherwise), the details of the functions entrusted by the AFRC to such agency(ies) shall be placed in the public domain and published in English and local language newspapers having sufficient circulation in the State, to enable public information of particulars of such entrustment; (xi) The AFRC shall instruct the agency or agencies (to whom it entrusts the function of vetting or verification of fee proposals along with the accompanying records and data) to specifically verify and identify whether there is an element of profiteering or collection of capitation fee and to record observations on this aspect, in respect of each private educational institution which submits fee structure proposals; (xii) Copies of the report/recommendations prepared and forwarded by such entrusted agency/agencies to the AFRC (which would be the material considered by the AFRC in formulating its recommendations on institution-specific proposals and these would also be the material for the eventual fee structure notifications by the State) shall be furnished to each private unaided educational institution which responds to the AFRC notification (inviting fee proposals) and has duly submitted the relevant data, documents and particulars, requisitioned by the AFRC for submission along with fee proposals; (xiii) The reports/recommendations prepared by the entrusted agency/agencies and the recommendations by the AFRC submitted to the State Government shall simultaneously be placed in the public domain; (xiv) The State Government shall issue the fee structure notifications by the 1st week of March, preceding the academic year or block of academic years, as the case may be, for which the fee structure notifications are intended to apply; (xv) As a consequence of the above analyses, declarations and directions, the fee structure Notifications issued in G.O.Ms. No. 76, Higher Education Department, dated 13-08-2010; G.O.Ms. No. 77, Higher Education Department, dated 13-08-2010; G.O.Ms. No. 85, Higher Education Department, dated 02-08-2011 and G.O.Ms. No. 86, Higher Education Department, dated 04-08-2011; together with the recommendations of the AFRC contained in Order No. 13/AFRC/FF/2010-11.41, dated 06-08-2010 and Order No. 14/AFRC/FF/2010-11/552, dated 07-08-2010, are declared invalid and quashed; (xvi) For the academic years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13, the AFRC shall now consider afresh the fee structure proposals submitted by those private educational institutions which have responded (to its notification dated 27-04-2010) and forwarded fee structure proposals together with the particulars spelt out by the AFRC in the annexure to the said notification (either wholly or substantially) and shall verify the same for identifying whether the proposals incorporate elements of profiteering or capitation fee (institution and course-wise). If any further particulars, documents, registers or data are required, the AFRC may issue a written notice to the concerned educational institution to furnish the specified particulars, documents, registers or data required by it. After scrutiny and verification of the material available, the AFRC shall draw-up a report containing its recommendations on the fee structure for each course of study in respect of each responsive institution; duly incorporating in its report the seat-wise cost in respect of each course of study in specific institutions; recommending a uniform fee for 'A' & 'B' category students. The AFRC may however recommend a higher fee for 15% of the sanctioned intake earmarked for NRI/NRI category students. This exercise shall be in accordance with the observations and directions in this judgment. (xvii) The State shall notify fee structure proposals afresh for the academic years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 after due consideration of the recommendations of the AFRC and in the light of the principles and directions contained in this judgment; and (xviii)The relevant exercise by the AFRC and the State, as directed in sub-paras (xvi) and (xvii), shall be expeditiously processed and concluded, including by the issuance of appropriate notifications by the State, in any case within a period of three (3) months from today. 55. Even on perusal of said directions, there is absolutely nothing to hold that the action of respondent No.2 in displaying the notices and notifications in the website is sufficient to call for information from each of the colleges. 56. 55. Even on perusal of said directions, there is absolutely nothing to hold that the action of respondent No.2 in displaying the notices and notifications in the website is sufficient to call for information from each of the colleges. 56. Therefore, on strict interpretation of language employed in clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules, 2019, failure to issue communication to individual colleges calling for proposed fee structure along with 21 schedules is a serious illegality. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that display of notification in the website of respondent No.2 calling for proposed fee structure as mandated under Rule 8 (1) of the Rules, 2019 is sufficient, and the same is hereby rejected. 57. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, also pointed out that no opportunity of being heard before fixing fee or fees is provided to the petitioners; it is also another violation of clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. 58. As seen from the material produced along with the counter, it is clear that except displaying various notices or notifications in the website of respondent No.2, nothing is available to establish that notices were served on the individual colleges calling upon to appear and express their views about the fixation of fee or fees. On 15.06.2020 a letter vide Lr.No.58/APHERMC/ADMN/2020 was issued directing the A.P. Private Un-Aided Degree Colleges Association to consult its member colleges and represent before the Commission on their behalf and appear before the Commission on 18.06.2020 at 11.00 a.m. in order to make appropriate recommendation to the Government. Again on 17.06.2020 another letter vide Lr.No.286/APHERMC/ADMN/2020 was issued informing the members to follow Covid protocol while attending the meeting on 18.06.2020. 59. It is clear from the contents of the letter vide Lr.No.58/APHERMC/ADMN/2020 dated 15.06.2020 individual colleges were not called upon to attend the enquiry before fixing fee. According to clause (3) of Rule 8, the Commission shall be at liberty to approve or alter the proposed fee for each course to be charged by the Institution; provided that it shall give the Institution an opportunity of being heard before fixing any fee or fees. Thus, providing of opportunity to the individual institutions is mandatory. According to clause (3) of Rule 8, the Commission shall be at liberty to approve or alter the proposed fee for each course to be charged by the Institution; provided that it shall give the Institution an opportunity of being heard before fixing any fee or fees. Thus, providing of opportunity to the individual institutions is mandatory. Instead of affording an opportunity to individual institutions, notice was issued to A.P. Private Un-Aided Degree Colleges Association to consult its members and represent before the Commission on their behalf. But no such procedure is prescribed under clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. On the other hand, it is clearly stated that an opportunity shall be given to each institution before fixing fee any fee or fees. But, here no opportunity was given to the individual institutions as mandated under clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. On this ground also, the petitioners sought to set aside the same. 60. The principle of natural justice is embedded in clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 i.e. an opportunity of being heard shall be provided before fixing any fee or fees. Making recommendations fixing fee payable for academic year 2020-21 to 2022-23 for different courses without affording an opportunity to the petitioners i.e. without complying principles of natural justice, is violative of clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. Such an opportunity shall be provided only to the institutions independently to place their case before respondent No.2 and highlight the facilities available in the institutions including faculty, infrastructure etc. Without affording an opportunity as mandated in clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019, respondent No.2 made recommendations fixing fee, in turn respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 totally in violation of principles of natural justice and the mandatory requirement under clause (3) of Rules 8 of the Rules 2019, such arbitrary act of respondents cannot be sustained. 61. Respondent No.2 issued notice on 15.06.2020 vide Lr.No.58/APHERMC/ADMN/2020 directing the A.P. Private Un-Aided Degree Colleges Association to consult its member colleges and represent before the Commission on their behalf and appear before the Commission on 18.06.2020 at 11.00 a.m. in order to make appropriate recommendation as to fixation of fee, to the Government. In fact, the said association has no role in fixation of fee strictly adhering to Rules 2019. In fact, the said association has no role in fixation of fee strictly adhering to Rules 2019. Nowhere in the rules, the word 'association' is defined and mandated for issue of notice to the association calling for objections. However, in utter deviation of procedure prescribed in clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019, notice was issued to the association to appear before respondent No.2 on specific date and time. Hence, the fee recommended by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, notified the same by respondent No.1 is not only violative of procedure prescribed in clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019, but also violation of principles of natural justice. This Court can interfere with such administrative orders when there is a procedural deviation in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments (referred supra). 62. One of the contentions raised before this Court is that categorisation of colleges into 3 is in violation of clause (4) of the Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. Whereas, Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that it is highly difficult for respondent No.2 to fix fee for various courses to each individual institution taking into consideration of various aspects prescribed under clause (4) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. Based on the infrastructure, faculty standards etc., including area where the college is situated, they are categorised into 3' and supported the action of respondent No.2 in categorisation of colleges into 3' groups. At this stage, it is relevant to extract the clause (4) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 at the cost of repetition and the same is extracted hereunder for better appreciation. "(4) The Commission shall take into consideration the following factors while prescribing the fee; (a) The location of the Higher Educational Institution, (b) The nature of the course, (c) The cost of available infrastructure, (d) The expenditure on administration and maintenance, (e) A reasonable surplus required for growth and development of the Higher Educational Institutions, (f) The revenue foregone on account of waiver of fee, if any, in respect of students belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and wherever applicable to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and other Economically Weaker Sections of the Society, to such extent as shall be notified by the Government from time to time, (g) Any other relevant factor." 63. Respondent No.2 is required to consider various aspects specified in clause (4) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 and fix fee for every educational institution. Here, for convenience sake and to avoid examination of relevant factors specified in clause (4) of Rule 8, provided by individual institutions, respondent No.2 divided the colleges into 3 categories, which is not permitted under the Rules and absolutely there is no rationale behind such categorisation and no opportunity was afforded to the concerned colleges while inclusion of those colleges in particular category. In fact, no proceedings were issued dividing the colleges into 3' for fixation of fee based on the relevant considerations prescribed in clause (4) of Rule 8. Thus, the very categorisation of colleges into three, without affording an opportunity before such categorisation, is another serious illegality. Though, no categorisation is prescribed under the Rules, even for convenience sake categorisation is required to be made, it must be preceded by an opportunity to the institutions before inclusion of those institutions in a particular category. But, no such procedure is followed. Therefore, very categorisation, which is not specifically authorized by any of the provisions of the Act, is a serious illegality. 64. No doubt, it is a difficult task for respondent No.2 to fix fee for each institution individually taking into consideration of relevant factors specified in clause (4) of Rule 8. But, respondent No.2 is functioning throughout the year with staff and paraphernalia, they can undertake such exercise in advance and fix fee to individual institutions taking into consideration the relevant factors specified in clause (4) of Rule 8. Therefore, the difficulty expressed by respondent No.2 in fixing fee for each individual institution is not an excuse when the rules do not permit specifically such categorisation. Thus, the very categorisation of institutions at the whim and fancy of respondent No.2, while inclusion of several institutions in different categories without any prior opportunity is another procedural violation. Therefore, on this ground also the recommendation made by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, notified by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is hit by doctrine of procedural ultra vires. Hence, on this ground also, G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be set aside. 65. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel contended that the recommendations made by respondent No.2 are hit by doctrine of procedural ultra vires. 66. Hence, on this ground also, G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be set aside. 65. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel contended that the recommendations made by respondent No.2 are hit by doctrine of procedural ultra vires. 66. When the power is conferred on an administrative body, the instrument conferring the power may itself provide for restrictions on the exercise of the power. Such restriction may be procedural (i.e. how the power is to be exercised). Even though the statute conferring the powers does not in terms limit its operation, the Courts will impose limits by reference to principle of reasonableness and fairness. In recent times, procedural fairness has emerged as a unique check on the executive and Courts may read such procedural fairness in actions of State or its instrumentalities. 67. When a statute prescribes a manner or form in which a duty is to be performed or a power exercised, it seldom lays down what will be the legal consequences of failure to observe its prescription. The courts must, therefore, formulate their own criteria for determining whether the procedural rules are to be regarded as mandatory in which case disobedience will render void or voidable what has been done, or as directory in which case disobedience will be treated as a mere irregularity not affecting the validity of what has been done. A quasi-judicial authority is under an obligation to act judicially. Suppose, it does not so act and passes an order in violation of the principles of natural justice. What is the position then? There are some decisions, particularly with regard to customs authorities, where it has been held that an order of a quasi-judicial authority given in violation of the principles of natural justice is really an order without jurisdiction and if the order threatens or violates a fundamental right, an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India may lie. (See: Sinha Govindji v. The Deputy Controller of Imports & Exports, Madras, (1962) 1 SCR 540 ). 68. In "Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, (1994) Supp2 SCC 641", challenging the disqualification order passed by the Speaker of the Goa Assembly, it was urged that reasonable opportunity was denied in as much as sufficient time was not granted to respond. 68. In "Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, (1994) Supp2 SCC 641", challenging the disqualification order passed by the Speaker of the Goa Assembly, it was urged that reasonable opportunity was denied in as much as sufficient time was not granted to respond. Further, it was urged that the Speaker had referred to certain extraneous materials and circumstances, namely, the copies of the newspapers that were produced at the time of hearing and the talks which the Speaker had with the Governor and had denied to the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence. In the said case, the Apex Court noticing the principles of natural justice, the decision of the Apex Court in "Mrs.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 ", "Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 ", reiterated that an order of an authority exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is procedurally ultra vires and, therefore, suffers from a jurisdictional error. 69. While applying the principles of natural justice, it must be borne in mind that "they are not immutable but flexible" and they are not cast in a rigid mould and cannot be put in a legal strait-jacket. Whether the requirements of natural justice have been complied with or not has to be considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 70. In "Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) 1 SCR 778 " the Apex Court held that, in three classes of cases, the question of enforcement of the fundamental rights would arise, namely, (1) where action is taken under a statute which is ultra vires the Constitution; (2) where the statute is intra vires but the action taken is without jurisdiction; and (3) an authority under an obligation to act judicially passes an order in violation of the principles of natural justice. These categories are, of course, not exhaustive. 71. In "Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1966) 3 SCR 744 ", a Special Bench of nine Judges of the Apex Court held that, where the action taken against a citizen is procedurally ultra vires, the aggrieved party can move the Court. 72. In view of the law declared in the above judgments, procedure followed by respondent No.2 for recommending fee structure for various courses is hit by procedural ultra vires. 72. In view of the law declared in the above judgments, procedure followed by respondent No.2 for recommending fee structure for various courses is hit by procedural ultra vires. Consequently, G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021, which was issued based on the recommendations made by respondent No.2, is illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, so also violation of clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be struck down. 73. One of the contentions of Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, is that the petitioner in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 shifted its institution to Palasa from Srikakulam, the appropriate action is being initiated and show-cause notice was issued by the authorities for taking appropriate action. 74. If the petitioner in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 violates any of the conditions prescribed to establish college, an independent action can be taken by the competent authorities. But, that will have no bearing on the issue involved in W.P.No.1327 of 2021 and the same will not come in the way of petitioner to claim relief in W.P.No.1327 of 2021. 75. Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that so far as the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2210, 2629 of 2021 are concerned, they registered their colleges for fixation of fee by paying requisite registration fee, but the petitioner in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 did not submit the schedules specified under the Rules, whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 furnished information in part, thereby they are not entitled to claim any relief in W.P.Nos.2210 and 2629 of 2021. 76. When the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2210 and 2629 of 2021 registered their cases for fixation of fee, respondent No.2 is bound to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 (1) and (3) of the Rules 2019 while fixing fee taking into consideration of relevant factors prescribed in clause (4) of Rule 8. But no procedure was followed, more particularly clause (1) and (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 77. Fixation of fee taking into consideration of relevant factors prescribed in clause (4) of Rule 8 would arise only when the information contained in 21 schedules and proposed fee for various courses is submitted to respondent No.2 by individual institutions. But no procedure was followed, more particularly clause (1) and (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019 77. Fixation of fee taking into consideration of relevant factors prescribed in clause (4) of Rule 8 would arise only when the information contained in 21 schedules and proposed fee for various courses is submitted to respondent No.2 by individual institutions. But the petitioners in W.P.No.2210 and 2629 of 2021 did not furnish such information and the reason for failure to submit information is that no notice was served calling upon the information as required in schedules 1 to 21 and proposed fee for various courses for academic years 2020-21 to 2022-23. In the absence of any individual communication calling upon such information, in view of the language employed in clause (1) of Rule 8, the respondents cannot blame the petitioners for failure to submit information as demanded by respondent No.2 for fixation of fee for various courses. Therefore, failure to inform to individual institutions separately calling for proposed fee structure for various courses as mandated under clause (1) of Rule 8 disabled the petitioner in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 to furnish the details in 21 schedules and proposed fee structure for various courses. Therefore, on the ground that the petitioner in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 failed to submit information, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected as the grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.2210 of 2021 is that respondent No.2 failed to comply with clause (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. 78. So far as the petitioner in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 is concerned, it had furnished information partly in the schedules prescribed under the rules. Even though the petitioner in W.P.No.2629 of 2021 submitted partial information, it is the obligation on the part of the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under clause (3) of Rule 8 while fixing fee for various courses taking into consideration of relevant factors contained in clause (4) of Rule 8. But no such procedure was followed, thereby the recommendations made by respondent No.2 are vitiated by a irregularity and in utter violation of clauses (1) (3) and (4) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. Hence, the claim of the petitioners cannot be rejected on any of the grounds pleaded by the respondents. But no such procedure was followed, thereby the recommendations made by respondent No.2 are vitiated by a irregularity and in utter violation of clauses (1) (3) and (4) of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. Hence, the claim of the petitioners cannot be rejected on any of the grounds pleaded by the respondents. Consequently, the contentions of Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the respondents are hereby rejected while upholding the contentions of the petitioners. Accordingly, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioners. POINT No.3: 79. In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, this Court need not answer this point. Therefore, no finding is recorded on this point. 80. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed with the following directions/declarations: (1) G.O.Ms.No.1 Higher Education (C.E.A2) Department dated 08.01.2021 issued by respondent No.1 is quashed to the extent of applicability to the petitioners herein while declaring the action of respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Rule 8 of the Rules 2019, principles of natural justice, and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (2) Respondent No.2 is directed to issue intimation by registered post with acknowledgement due or serve such intimation through the staff of District Educational Officer of concerned districts under proper acknowledgement, calling for information in 21 schedules including the proposed fee structure for various courses and on submission of the same, respondent No.2 shall afford an opportunity strictly adhering to clause (3) of Rule 8 of Rules 2019 by issuing appropriate intimation in the manner stated above, so also before inclusion of the petitioners in particular category. (3) Till finalization of fixation of fee for various courses in the petitioners' institutions, the petitioners may be permitted to collect provisional fee for various courses from the students subject to fixation of fee by respondent No.2 strictly adhering to Rule 8 of the Rules 2019. No costs. 81. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.