JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Declaration, declaring G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 11.02.2012 issued by the respondent is void and non est as the same illegal and unconstitutional as far as the Subashakthi Arts and Science college, for Women, Sathiamanagalam, Kulithalai, Karur District.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is seeking for a Declaration to declare that the G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 11.02.2012 issued by the respondents is void and nonest, as the same is illegal and unconstitutional insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Heard Mr.S.Jayavel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. Mr.S.Jeyavel, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an Educational and Charitable Trust running Arts and Science College for women in the name and style of Subashakthi College in Kulithalai Taluk. The petitioner is offering various under graduate courses as approved by the University Grants Commission. On 11.09.2012, the second respondent had issued the impugned Government Order, under which it has fixed a ceiling limit of collection of fees for certain categories of students. The said Government Order also does not subsidise the petitioner college for collecting a lesser fee from the students belonging to the respective categories. 4. He would further submit that the Government Order is in total violation of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in T.M.A.Pai''s case as confirmed in P.A.Inamdar''s case. If the Government Orders are continued to be implemented, the petitioner would have to pass on the burden to the other students. Such passing of burden to the other students has been deprecated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. He would further submit that the Government Order impugned in this writ petition will have to be set aside. 5. Countering his arguments, Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, a Fee Fixation Committee had been constituted for Arts and Science College. But due to various reasons, the committee had not finalized the fees collected by the Arts and Science Colleges. He would further submit that the impugned Government Order has been issued to safeguard and protect the downtrodden people and SC/ST students'' interest. But due to various reasons, the committee had not finalized the fees collected by the Arts and Science Colleges. He would further submit that the impugned Government Order has been issued to safeguard and protect the downtrodden people and SC/ST students'' interest. It is also a policy decision taken by the Government and there can be no grievance on the part of the Self- Financing Colleges. The fee stated in the Government Order would be subject to the finalization of fee by the Fee Fixation Committee appointed by the Government pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. He would further submit that the colleges cannot have any right while collecting fees from the students. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side. 7. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be relevant to analyze the impugned Government Order in this writ petition. The impugned Government Order provides free education to the SC/ST candidates and to the candidates, who were converted to Christianity, if their parents/guardians income is below Rs. 2,00,000/- and subsidise the same from the funds given by the Central Government. The Government Order also in Annexure-I had tabulated the fee as fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee for the academic year 2012-2013 and in Annexure-II, the fee fixed by the Government for Self-Financing Colleges imparting education in Arts and Science. 8. A plain reading of the Government Order would espouse the policy decision of the Government in subsidising the college fee for a particular category of students, namely the students belonging to SC/ST community and others, who were converted to Christianity from SC/ST community. What is disturbing is that the petitioner is a Self-Financing Arts and Science College. Admittedly, during the year, when the impugned order was passed, no fee was fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee appointed by the Government in respect of Arts and Science college. They were collecting the fee as fixed by them. However, the Government in Annexure-II had prescribed a table of fees for various courses in self-financing Arts and Science colleges. The Government by the impugned Government Order had mandated that the petitioner college can only collect the fee prescribed in Annexure-II in respect of the students admitted by it into the various courses conducted by the petitioner. However, the Government in Annexure-II had prescribed a table of fees for various courses in self-financing Arts and Science colleges. The Government by the impugned Government Order had mandated that the petitioner college can only collect the fee prescribed in Annexure-II in respect of the students admitted by it into the various courses conducted by the petitioner. This, in my view, is contrary to the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in T.M.A.Pai''s case as explained in P.A.Inamdar''s case. The Government Order is akin to the ratio laid down in Unni Krishnan''s case, which has been specifically overruled by the Larger Bench in T.M.A.Pai''s case. 9. The 9 Bench Judge in Unni Krishnan''s case by majority have made a division of free seat and payment seat. This classification has been held to be bad by the 11 Judge Bench in T.M.A.Pai''s case by holding that the expenses incurred by the college for the students admitted in the free seat cannot be included in the fees that is to be charged from a student appointed under the payment seat. Therefore, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education''s Case has devised a committee to look into the fee that is prescribed by the college and thereafter approve the same or direct to reduction in fee. This was further explained in P.A.Inamdar''s case. 10. It will be useful to refer the relevant paragraphs in the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of T.M.A.Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481. “37. Unni Krishnan judgment has created certain problems, and raised thorny issues. In its anxiety to check the commercialization of education, a scheme of "free" and "payment" seats was evolved on the assumption that the economic capacity of first 50% of admitted students would be greater than the remaining 50%, whereas the converse has proved to be the reality. In this scheme, the "payment seat" student would not only pay for his own seat, but also finance the cost of a "free seat" classmate. In this scheme, the "payment seat" student would not only pay for his own seat, but also finance the cost of a "free seat" classmate. When one considers the Constitution Bench''s earlier statement that higher education is not a fundamental right, it seems unreasonable to compel a citizen to pay for the education of another, more so in the unrealistic world of competitive examinations which assess the merit for the purpose of admission solely on the basis of the marks obtained, where the urban students always have an edge over the rural students. In practice, it has been the case of the marginally less merited rural or poor student bearing the burden of a rich and well-exposed urban student. .......... 45. In view of the discussion hereinabove, we hold that the decision in Unni Krishnan''s case, insofar as it framed the scheme relating to the grant of admission and the fixing of the fee, was not correct, and to that extent, the said decision and the consequent direction given to UGC, AICTE, Medical Council of India, Central and State Government, etc., are overruled.” 11. Now what the impugned Government Order tries to bring back the pre T.M.A.Pai''s era, whereby the colleges would be forced to distribute the expenses incurred on the students admitted based on the impugned Government Order to the other students. Hence, to that aspect alone, the impugned Government Order would be liable to be interfered with. 12. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the present Fee Scrutinization Committee had been holding meetings with regard to fixation of fee even for the self-financing Arts and Science Colleges. I request the Hon''ble Fee Scrutinization Committee to expeditiously decide the issue. 13. Having found that the Government Order is liable to be interfered with only to the extent that the petitioner college should collect the fee prescribed in Annexure – II, I do not propose to give liberty to the petitioner college to recover the excess fee from the students, who had been admitted in the college till the academic year 2022-2023. The petitioner college is permitted to collect the fee fixed by it only for the students to be admitted from the academic year 2023-2024. The petitioner college is permitted to collect the fee fixed by it only for the students to be admitted from the academic year 2023-2024. If the Fee Scrutinisation Committee finds that the fees collected by the petitioner is on the higher side, then the petitioner shall refund the excess amount collected by it to the respective students. If the Government proposes to subsidise the students, who would be entitled to the benefit of the impugned Government Order, then the Government shall intimate the petitioner college of its intention to subsidise and request the petitioner college not to collect any fee from the said students, who would get the benefit of the impugned Government Order. 14. As stated supra, if the Government decides to subsidise, such subsidy shall be paid on or before the end of the respective academic years. Therefore, the Government Order indicated above as far as the petitioner is concerned is held to be bad in law and the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the aforesaid direction. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.