JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. The petitioners, five in number, had taken admission in the course of Bachelor of Arts in the respondent University viz. Raksha Shakti University, Gandhinagar in the Academic Year 2017-18. The Bachelor of Arts course was for a period of 3 years. At the time when the admission was taken by the petitioners, the University was functioning from Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad Campus and the hostel fees in 2017 was Rs.300/- p.m. as per the Rules and Regulations, which the petitioners accepted and were paying. Some time in 2018-19, the hostel as also the University shifted to a new permanent campus in Lavad, Gandhinagar. The petitioners shifted to Gandhinagar in the new campus. According to the petitioners from October, 2018, for the new campus, the University started demanding Rs.1,000/- p.m. towards hostel fees, whereupon the petitioners made representation resisting the enhancement in the hostel fees on the ground that it was too excessive. According to the petitioners, the enhancement was made without following due procedure prescribed under law nor any resolution was passed and as such the demand was illegal. It is also the case of the petitioners that office order dated 13.12.2019 requiring the petitioners and other defaulters for payment of arrears of hostel fees to be illegal and liable to be quashed. 2. The petitioners have originally prayed for quashing of the office order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure-A to the petition). Later on, by way of amendment, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the Hostel Rules as being illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and without authority and being ultra vires to the provisions of the University Act. This amendment was brought about by way of Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 seeking certain directions in the said application. This Court, by order dated 10.12.2020 had granted relief in terms of para 9(D) i.e. prayer to amend the petition by adding a further prayer challenging rules was allowed. In the Civil Application it was stated that the University was not issuing migration certificate in view of the default in payment of hostel fees and as such relief was sought to direct the respondent University to issue migration certificate. The Civil Application also contain certain facts regarding Hostel Rules and a copy of the Hostel Rules was also attached with the Civil Application. 3. The University had filed its reply duly sworn by the In-Charge Registrar. The Civil Application also contain certain facts regarding Hostel Rules and a copy of the Hostel Rules was also attached with the Civil Application. 3. The University had filed its reply duly sworn by the In-Charge Registrar. Following facts emerge from the affidavit in reply: [a] It is admitted in the affidavit in reply that the petitioners had taken admission in the Bachelor of Arts course in the Academic Yer 2017-18. The permanent campus started functioning from 2018-19. According to the University, the hostel was shifted in October, 2018, whereas, the academic campus shifted in March, 2019. [b] It is also admitted that earlier hostel fees at the temporary campus was Rs.300/- p.m., however, when the new campus started hostel fees was enhanced to Rs.1,000/- p.m. w.e.f. October, 2018. The decision to determine the hostel fees at Rs.300/- was earlier taken by the Director General (Vice Chancellor) and further the decision to enhance to Rs.1,000/- was also taken by the Director General (Vice Chancellor). [c] The Director General (Vice Chancellor) had the power under Section 7(xvii) read with Section 9 of the Raksha Shakti University Act, 2009. [d] It is also submitted that there were in all about 550 students residing in the hostel, including the petitioners. All the students accepted the hostel fees of Rs.1,000/- when the new campus started, however, it is only these five students, who have approached this Court raising their grievance regarding payment of enhanced hostel fees. [e] It is also stated in the affidavit in reply that the petitioners had not come up with clean hands as material facts have been concealed by them. It is stated that petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 had applied for bonafide certificates from office of the hostel for the purpose of applying for scholarship provided by the Gujarat Government to students belonging to reserved categories, wherein it is mentioned that the students are paying Rs.1,000/- towards hostel fees. [f] It is also stated in the affidavit in reply that the petitioner No.3 never stayed in the hostel premises in the temporary campus and it was only in the new campus that he was allotted the hostel. As such having accepted the hostel allotment in the new campus, for the first time, knowing fully well the hostel fees he would not have any locus to challenge the same. As such having accepted the hostel allotment in the new campus, for the first time, knowing fully well the hostel fees he would not have any locus to challenge the same. [g] It is also stated in the affidavit in reply that considering the various facilities being provided the fees of Rs.1,000/- p.m. was fixed. These facilities included WiFi, R.O. water cooler, medical facilities, gymnasium, sports facilities, hot water in winters, cupboard, study table, green and clean environment and other basic amenities. [h] The University in the affidavit in reply specifically denied that the petitioners were thrown out in the mid night rather they had left on their volition on the date and time given as per their undertaking. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners. What is stated in the rejoinder is that the enhancement of Rs.300/- to Rs.1,000/- vide notice dated 05.10.2018 was not pasted on the notice board. That the petitioners had migrated to the new hostel under protest. It is also stated that the exercise of power has to be done in the manner prescribed and in no other manner. It is only the Board of Governors which had the power to fix the fees and not the Director General (Vice Chancellor). The petitioners have also alleged that the respondent University has received huge grants from the State. 5. We have heard Mr. Sandip Munjyasara, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vyom Shah, learned counsel for the respondent University. 6. We would have dismissed this petition with heavy costs, but considering the fact that the petitioners are students, who passed out their graduation i.e. Bachelor of Arts in the year 2020, we have refrained ourselves from imposing any costs as any such cost imposed would be additional burden on their parents. 7. The petitioners on the one hand have resided in the hostel of the University knowing fully well that the hostel fees from October, 2018 i.e. when the hostel shifted to the new campus in Gandhinagar was Rs.1,000/- p.m., have raised the objection to the enhancement of the hostel fees from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,000/- p.m. 8. The fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed by the University would amount to an average of Rs.30/- per day and considering the facilities made available, it is hardly an amount to be objected. It is just a nominal amount. The fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed by the University would amount to an average of Rs.30/- per day and considering the facilities made available, it is hardly an amount to be objected. It is just a nominal amount. The University was not deriving any profit or any financial gain out of this nominal amount of hostel fees. May be it was not even sufficient for the maintenance and whatever was being charged was like a subsidy or a grant, living for free. 9. The petitioners in rejoinder have not disputed the statement of the University that earlier Rs.300/- p.m. as hostel fees was also determined by the Director General (Vice Chancellor) exercising powers under the statute and in the same manner, the same authority has enhanced the fees from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,000/- in October, 2018. 10. The petitioners never challenged that even the demand of Rs.300/- was not justified. If according to them it is only the Board of Governors which could have fixed, then in the absence of there being any decision of the Board of Governors to fix Rs.300/- as hostel fees, no payment could have been raised under the head Hostel Fees. 11. Under Section 7(xvii) of the Raksha Shakti University Act, 2009 Act, the respondent University is empowered to exercise the powers and to perform the functions viz. to fix, demand and receive or recover fees and such other charges as may be prescribed. Further under Section 9(3) of the 2009 Act, the Director General is authorized to exercise such powers of the University and the same shall be placed before the University. Thus, the Director General (Vice Chancellor) had powers to enhance the hostel fees. Section 7(xvii) and Section 9 of the Raksha Shakti University Act, 2009 reads as under: “7. Further under Section 9(3) of the 2009 Act, the Director General is authorized to exercise such powers of the University and the same shall be placed before the University. Thus, the Director General (Vice Chancellor) had powers to enhance the hostel fees. Section 7(xvii) and Section 9 of the Raksha Shakti University Act, 2009 reads as under: “7. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the University shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions, namely;- [i] to [xvi] xxx [xvii] to fix, demand and receive or recover fees and such other charges as may be prescribed;” Section 9 of the 2009 Act reads as under: “9[1] The Director General shall have, subject to the provisions of this Act, power to cause an inspection or review to be made by such person or persons as he may direct, of the University, its buildings, hostels, libraries, equipments and systems and processes and of any institution or centre maintained by the University, and also of the examinations, teaching, research and other work conducted or done by the University and to cause an inquiry to be made in like manner in respect of any matter connected with the administration, academic affairs and finance of the University. [2] Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Director General shall – [i] be the chief executive and academic officer of the University. He shall preside over the meetings of the Board, Academic Council and the Finance Committee; [ii] ensure implementation of the decisions of the authorities of the University; [iii] be responsible for imparting of instructions and maintenance of discipline in the University; and [iv] exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by or under this Act or the regulations or as may be delegated to him by the Board or by the State Government. 9[3] Where any matter is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same cannot be immediately dealt with by the authority or body of the University empowered under this Act to deal with it, the Director General may take such action as he may deem fit and shall forthwith report the action so taken by him to the authority or body of the University who or which, in the ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter: Provided that if such authority or other body is of the opinion that such action ought not to have been taken by the Director General, it may refer the matter to the Board which may either confirm the action taken by the Director General or annul the same or modify it in such manner as it thinks fit, and thereupon the action shall cease to have effects or, as the case may be, shall take effect in such modified form so however such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of any thing previously done by or under the order of the Director General. [4] Where the exercise of the power by the Director General under sub-section (3) involves the appointment of any person, such appointment shall be confirmed by the competent authority empowered to approve such appointment in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the regulations not later than six months from the date of order of the Director General, otherwise such appointment shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of order of the Director General.” 12. Further, the challenge to the Hostel Rules is without any basis and no foundation has been laid. Merely by saying that the Director General had no power is not going to help the petitioners in any manner. 13. For all the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed off.