ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by Admission Overseeing Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Committee’ for short) by which the Committee has recommended to the State Government to direct Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’ for short) to order for refund of excess fee collected by the petitioner from each of the Students for the academic year 2017-18 and second year MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19 along with interest at the rate of 6% within a period of 30 days. It has further been directed that in case, the aforesaid direction is not complied with, the University may impose twice the amount of fine and to make recommendation to Medical Council of India for withdrawal of recognition and affiliation granted to the petitioner. In order to appreciate the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order, few relevant facts need mentioned, which are stated hereinafter. 2. The petitioner runs a college viz., Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital, which imparts education in MBBS course as well as Post Graduate courses in Medical and Dental education. The Association of minority professional colleges of which the petitioner is a member entered into an agreement with the State Government on 25.07.2017. The aforesaid agreement, which binds the petitioner provides that in respect of private seats , a sum of Rs.6,32,500/- shall be charged as fee per year, whereas, in respect of Government quota seats, a sum of Rs.77,000/- shall be charged as fee per year. Respondents 6 to 35 were selected for study of MBBS course for academic session 2017-18. 3. Admittedly, an additional sum of Rs.1,48,000/- was charged from the students admitted against private quota seats, whereas, an additional sum of Rs.48,800/- was charged from the students admitted against the government quota seats. The aforesaid amount was charged over and above the amount prescribed in the agreement. Thereupon, complaints were made to the Committee. The Committee issued notice to the petitioner and after considering the response filed by the petitioner, passed an order dated 31.10.2018 recommending the State Government to direct the University to order for refund of excess fee collected by the petitioner from the students along with interest at the rate of 6% within a period of 30 days. The Committee issued notice to the petitioner and after considering the response filed by the petitioner, passed an order dated 31.10.2018 recommending the State Government to direct the University to order for refund of excess fee collected by the petitioner from the students along with interest at the rate of 6% within a period of 30 days. It was further directed that in the event of failure of the petitioner to refund the amount, the University may be directed to impose a fine of twice the amount collected and to make necessary recommendations to the Medical Council of India for withdrawal of recognition and affiliation granted to the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 is per se without jurisdiction as there is no power under Section 5(8) of the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) to determine the issue whether excess fee has been charged from the students. It is further submitted that complaint with regard to excess fee can be entertained under Section 7(4) of the Act by Fee Fixation Committee and there is no order by the Fee Fixation Committee. It is also submitted that the Committee should have forwarded the matter for consideration to the Fee Fixing Committee. It is also submitted that students have paid the amount voluntarily and no excess fee has been charged but the amount has been recovered from the students as additional charges to make available the facilities to them. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in ‘INDU GUPTA VS. DIRECTOR SPORTS, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER, AIR 99 PH 319 (P&HC), ‘ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, 2003 AIR SCW 4240, ‘P.A.INAMDAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA, (2004) 8 SCC 139 , and ‘COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VS. THOMAS P. JOHN.’, (2008) 8 SC 82. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner is not entitled to collect more fee than the fee prescribed under the agreement. It is also pointed out that request to charge the fee under other heads has already been rejected by State Government by order dated 21.07.2017. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner is not entitled to collect more fee than the fee prescribed under the agreement. It is also pointed out that request to charge the fee under other heads has already been rejected by State Government by order dated 21.07.2017. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submitted that admittedly, the excess amount has been recovered from the students and the order passed by the Committee is not under the provisions of the Act but has been passed taking into account the provisions of the agreement and on the basis of admitted facts. Learned counsel for respondents No.6 to 35 has invited the attention of this court to Section 4A of the Act and has submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to recover any fee other than the one prescribed in the agreement. It is also submitted that provisions of Section 7 of the Act do not apply to the fact situation of the case. It is also pointed out that the Fee fixed by the Committee includes all components and the students were not given any option in the first year not to deposit the fee. It is also urged that the students were not aware about the agreement, which was executed between the Management and the State Government. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, the Association of Minority Professional Colleges in the State of Karnataka of which the petitioner is a member entered into an agreement with the State Government on 25.07.2017. The aforesaid agreement provides that a fee of Rs.6,32,500/- shall be charged from the students admitted against private quota seats, whereas, a sum of Rs.77,000/- shall be recovered as fee from students admitted against government quota seats. Clause 5(e) of the agreement, reads as under: All member professional colleges shall grant admission on receipt of allotment letters issued by the KEA and on receipt of allotment letters along with demand drafts issued in favour of the college from the student and documents pertaining to qualifications etc. The details of the fee inclusive of all components shall be furnished to the State Government in advance so that the same can be informed to the student prior to the date of counseling. The details of the fee inclusive of all components shall be furnished to the State Government in advance so that the same can be informed to the student prior to the date of counseling. Thus, it is evident that aforesaid fee structure has to be strictly adhered to and details of fee inclusive of all components has to be furnished to the State Government well in advance. 7. It is also not in dispute that petitioner has recovered an amount of Rs.1,48,000/- and an amount of Rs.48,800/- from the students admitted against private quota seats and students admitted against government quota seats respectively. Admittedly, the aforesaid amount has been recovered under various heads over and above the amount fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee. 8. The issue, which arises for consideration in this writ petition in substance is, whether the petitioner is entitled to recover any amount from the students over and above the amount fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education supra in paragraph 6 has held that once fees are fixed by the Committee, an institute cannot charge either directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. Thus, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the petitioner is not entitled to recover any amount over and above the fee fixed by the Committee. It is also not in dispute that petitioner has recovered the excess amount from the students over and above the amount fixed by the committee. Therefore, it has to be held that the petitioner is not entitled to recover any amount from the students over and above the amount fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee. 9. Section 4A of the Act deals with method of admission in case of consensual agreement. The Committee has made a recommendation for refund of excess fee charged by the petitioner, on the basis of admitted facts and in view of the complaint made by the students. The recommendation made by the Committee is in fact based on the agreement executed between the Association of Minority Professional Colleges. It is trite law that mere quoting of wrong provision does not invalidate an order. Merely because, a reference is made to Section 5(8) of the Act, the recommendation made by the Committee cannot be invalidated. The recommendation made by the Committee is in fact based on the agreement executed between the Association of Minority Professional Colleges. It is trite law that mere quoting of wrong provision does not invalidate an order. Merely because, a reference is made to Section 5(8) of the Act, the recommendation made by the Committee cannot be invalidated. The recommendation has been made by the Committee on the basis of admitted facts. The petitioner in view of law laid down by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court cannot be permitted to recover any amount over and above the amount fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee. For the aforementioned reasons and in the facts of the case, no interference is called for with the impugned order dated 31.10.2018. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.