JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. The delay occurred in filing the Civil Application seeking leave to Appeal, has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, Civil Application in the connected matter for condonation of delay is, accordingly, allowed. 2. The Civil Application for leave to appeal in the connected matter is allowed, accordingly. 3. This Court has passed the following common order dated 03.04.2024 in the bunch of appeals with lead matter as Civil Application (for Leave to Appeal) No. 1240 of 2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 334 Of 2024 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 334 Of 2024 in Special Civil Application No. 18076 Of 2019:- “1. The delay occurred in filing the Civil Applications seeking leave to Appeal, has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, all Civil Applications in the connected matters for condonation of delay are, accordingly, allowed. 2. The Civil Applications for leave to appeal in all the connected matter are allowed, accordingly. 3. The appeals, in this bunch, have been filed by the State through the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in remitting the matter for fresh consideration to the Fee Regulatory Committee ( in short as “FRC”) to decide on the fee proposal of self-financed schools in the State of Gujarat as per the Gujarat Self- Financed Schools (Regulation of Fees) Act, 2017 (in short as “ the Act’2017) and the Gujarat Self Financed Schools (Regulation of Fees) Rules, 2017( in short as “the Rules’ 2017”). 4. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge are primarily on the quorum of the Fee Regulatory Committee as also the method adopted by the Committee in determination of fee on the proposal submitted by the institutions. 5. The main grounds of challenge agitated by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State appellants are that the validity of the Act’2017 is under consideration of the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.314 of 2018. The intervention by the learned Single Judge on the challenge to the order passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee (in short as “the FRC”) and Fee Revision Committee would cause prejudice to and materially affect the scrutiny into the legality of the provisions of the Act. 6. The intervention by the learned Single Judge on the challenge to the order passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee (in short as “the FRC”) and Fee Revision Committee would cause prejudice to and materially affect the scrutiny into the legality of the provisions of the Act. 6. It was argued that on the lease rent, the learned Single Judge has directed the FRC to consider and verify the transactions of lease rent by conducting an inquiry as per Section 8 of the Act’ 2017 read with Rule 7 of Rule’ 2017 and has set aside the decision of the Committee where the lease rent was determined by calculating the same on the basis of Jantri value. It was urged that no error can be found in the decision of the FRC in determination of the lease rent as per the Jantri value, which is a relevant factor to determine the lease rent. Similarly, on depreciation, the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in holding that the depreciation would form part of the reasonable surplus to be provided in the proposed fee to be charged by the schools from the students and, as such, the depreciation claimed by the schools would not be allowed under separate Head. 7. Similarly, on the aspect of interest on loan, the learned Single Judge has forbidden the disallowance of interest on loan by amortizing the same over the life of an asset for which the loan may have been incurred. Such prohibition by the learned Single Judge would be contrary to the interest sought to be secured under the provisions of the Act for the reason that the school management will be free to determine the terms of loan at its whims and fancies and, accordingly, pass on the burden of exorbitant loan repayment and fasten its liability on the students by charging higher fee, showing such interest payable on loan secured by the management as expenditure. It was vehemently argued that the FRC is a statutory Committee framed under Section 3(4) of the Act’ 2017. Due opportunity of hearing has been granted to the institutions and fee structure has been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act’ 2017. 8. The FRC has fixed fee by disallowing the lease rent earned by the Trust, which amounted to profiteering as per Section 8(2). Due opportunity of hearing has been granted to the institutions and fee structure has been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act’ 2017. 8. The FRC has fixed fee by disallowing the lease rent earned by the Trust, which amounted to profiteering as per Section 8(2). As per the provisions of the Act, the FRC is to scrutinize the proposals and give opportunity of being heard before taking the decisions which had duly been granted to the concerned institutions. Two statutory authorities, namely the Fee Regulatory Committee and Fee Revision Committee had conducted the proceedings for determination of fee and there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to interfere in the decision when no fault in the decision making process could be found. 9. The attention of the Court is invited to Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act to submit that it is open for the FRC to decide its quorum to deal with the business of the Committee. The only business of the Committee is to determine the fee for the self-financed schools and, as such, the decision cannot be faulted by holding that the quorum was not complete. 10. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the original petitioner, in defence, of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.07.2022 would submit that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is extremely calibrated. Fixing or determining the fee is a right of the institutions, subject to the rider that they cannot ‘profiteer’. There cannot be, however, a fixed formula for the determination of fee for institutions. The FRC has to decide on a case to case basis. It cannot decide a common fee zone-wise. The error committed by the FRC to decide fee zone-wise has been highlighted before us. It was argued that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the FRC being a quasi-judicial authority which determines the fee, when consists of five persons as its constituents, any hearing of decision has to be undertaken jointly, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. The FRC consists of domain experts and, as such, non-inclusion of such persons in the decision making process would cause prejudice to the institutions. 11. The FRC consists of domain experts and, as such, non-inclusion of such persons in the decision making process would cause prejudice to the institutions. 11. The attention of the Court is further invited to Section 2(g) of the Act’ 2017, wherein different heads of the fee structure are to be included for determination of the aggregate, as stated hereunder. “2(g) Fee or Fee Structure” means any amount, by whatever name called, collected, directly or indirectly, by a school for admission of a student to any Standard or course of study and includes,- (i) Tuition fee; (ii) Term fee, which shall not exceed one month tuition fee per term; (iii) Library fee and deposit; (iv) Laboratory fee and deposit; (v) Gymkhana fee; (vi) Caution money; (vii) Examination fee; (viii) Admission fee, which shall not exceed one month tuition fee; (ix) Yoga AND Physical Education fee; (x) any other fee as determined by the Fee Regulatory Committee;” 12. Considering the said submissions, we may record that the adjudication of fee proposals for the respective Fee Regulatory Committees and Fee Revision Committees constituted under the Act’ 2017 is regulated by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. As per the procedure prescribed therein, Section 8 which empowers FRC to determine the fee payable by students in the self-financed schools provides that the Committee shall require each self-financed school to place before it the proposed fee structure of such school along with all relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny; it shall verify whether the fee proposed by the self- financed school is justified and whether it amounts to profiteering or charging of exorbitant fee; it shall approve the existing fee structure or determine the fee which can be charged by the self-financed schools. The FRC has power to hear complaints or initiate suo motu hearing with regard to calculation of excess fee by self-financed school, recall the fee charged by the school and initiate penal action as per the provisions of the Act. 13. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 8 confers power, on the FRC, of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while holding inquiry in the matters of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness; examining him on oath; for discovery and production of any document, receive evidence on affidavit and issue commission for examination of witnesses. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 8 confers power, on the FRC, of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while holding inquiry in the matters of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness; examining him on oath; for discovery and production of any document, receive evidence on affidavit and issue commission for examination of witnesses. Section 8(3)(b) further provides that all inquires and revisions under the Act by the Committee shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings. 14. Section 10 provides the factors for determination of fee leviable by the self- financed schools, which include the following:- (i) location of the self financed school i.e. village, town, or city in which the school is situated; (ii) investment incurred to setup the school; (iii) infrastructure made available to the students for the qualitative education, facilities provided as mentioned in the prospectus or website of the school; (iv) expenditure on administration, maintenance of services and utilities of the school; (v) excess fund generated from Non-Resident Indians, as a part of charity by the management and contribution by the Government for providing free-ship in fee or for other items under various Government schemes given to the school for the students. (vi) students strength in the self financed school; (vii) classes of study and courses of study offered by the school; (viii) qualification of teaching, and non-teaching staff ( as per the relevant norms) their salary components, and reasonable amount for yearly salary increments; (ix) expenditure incurred on the students against total income of the school which shall include profit earned from school by the trust or company associated with such school; (x) reasonable revenue surplus for the purpose of development, education and expansion of the school; (xi) any other factors which may be prescribed by the Government from time to time.” 15. Section 10, thus, provides that the FRC shall determine the total fee which shall be leviable by considering of different heads of fees charged by the school. Fee structure so determined by the FRC shall be binding on the self-financed schools for a period of three years. 16. Section 11 prohibits collection of fee in excess of the fee fixed by the FRC for admission of the students to any standard or course of study in that school. 17. Fee structure so determined by the FRC shall be binding on the self-financed schools for a period of three years. 16. Section 11 prohibits collection of fee in excess of the fee fixed by the FRC for admission of the students to any standard or course of study in that school. 17. Remedy of filing revision against the order passed by the FRC is provided under Section 12, which prescribes constitution of Fee Revision Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge. 18. The learned Single on a detail analysis of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder as also the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of determination of fee to be charged by self-financed institutions, has come to the conclusion that from a perusal of the decision of the FRC, in majority of the writ petitions, it is evident that it has not given any reason as to why the lease rent paid by the school is required to be disallowed and as to whether the rent paid by the school for ground as well as building has, in any manner, resulted into profiteering by the trust or the company associated with the running of the school. No inquiry appears to have been made by the FRC to verify the genuineness of the transaction though the lease rent was paid through the banking channel and the same is duly recorded in the books of accounts or the accounts audited by the Chartered Accountant, so as to arrive at a specific finding that the payment of lease rent would amount to profiteering as per Section 2(r) of the Act’ 2017. Contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act’ 2017 and the Rules’ 2017 made thereunder, the FRC has recalculated the lease rent on the basis of the Jantri value of the property to disallow the lease rent claimed by the institutions in their proposal. 19. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that the FRC can calculate the market value of the property in an attempt to ascertain as to what rent would be duly payable by the school, if it comes to the conclusion with the cogent reasons in view of the oral and documentary evidence on record that the transaction of lease has resulted in diversion of funds collected as fees by the schools as profiteering. However, without holding any inquiry, in complete disregard to the documents submitted by the school, the FRC could not have reduced the rent on its own that too without giving any reasons in support thereof, in complete ignorance of the factors provided under Section 10 of the Act’ 2017, such as location of the school, infrastructure of the school etc. It has further been noted that the fixation of standard lease rent and reduction of lease rent mentioned in the proposal of the school by applying the Jantri value of the property or valuation report was without any opportunity of hearing granted to the school to examine such report or to cross- examine the valuer. Such a decision was taken without conducting any inspection of the property in question by an approved valuer nor the schools were permitted to rely upon their valuer’s report to justify the rent actually paid by the school. 20. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that the schools shall have a right to offer such facilities as they consider appropriate for standards of education which they profess to meet. It was also noted that the FRC has failed to consider that when either the trustee or the management of the school has given the property on rent to run the school and reasonable rent is required to be granted, whether reasonable return on investment is to be calculated and to be considered as expenditure by the school to be part of the fee structure. In any case, the decision for reduction of rent in the proposal submitted by the schools was based on the Jantri value, without holding any inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 21. Learned Additional Advocate General could not dispute the aforesaid findings returned by the learned Single Judge and insisted that the reduction of rent was made by the FRC on consideration of the fact that the higher rates of rent have been included in the proposal given by the schools. The Jantri value is one of the reasonable factors for determination of the market value of the property and, thus, determination of rent. 22. The Jantri value is one of the reasonable factors for determination of the market value of the property and, thus, determination of rent. 22. As regards the said submissions, suffice it to note that the FRC could not have reduced the rent indicated in the proposal of the school without giving opportunity to the school on the valuation report prepared by it on the basis of the Jantri value. In any case, there are various factors as indicated in Section 10, noted hereinabove, which were required to be considered by the FRC, for arriving at a just and reasonable decision. 23. The learned Single Judge while making the observations about the manner in which the FRC has decided the lease rent has also noted that it is open for the FRC to examine as to whether the payment of lease rent would amount to profiteering in the hands of the Trust or the Company associated with the school and for that purpose, the school management is required to furnish all the requisite details as may be called for by the FRC, failing which the FRC would be justified to disallow such lease rent in absence of cooperation from the school as per Rule 7(1)(b) of the Rules’ 2017, by either adopting the Jantri rate for the market value or substituting the same as per the comparable case as reasonable amount of rent. It is further directed that the schools are also required to justify the lease rent paid by them by providing information and justification for payment of such lease rent as may be required by the FRC so as to establish that such lease rent would not amount to any profiteering in any manner whatsoever by the Trust or the Company associated with the school. 24. Taking note of the above, we do not find any error in the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the FRC has committed an error in reducing the lease rent unilaterally without giving the schools to rebut on the determination made by it. 25. On depreciation, the findings returned by the learned Single Judge do not require any interference, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge has decided that the separate claim of depreciation is not tenable as the same would be embedded in consideration of the reasonable revenue surplus. 26. 25. On depreciation, the findings returned by the learned Single Judge do not require any interference, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge has decided that the separate claim of depreciation is not tenable as the same would be embedded in consideration of the reasonable revenue surplus. 26. We may further note that the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in holding that the FRC could not determine the fee in a standardized format, which has been conferred with the power under the Act’ 2017 to verify the fees proposed by the school and examine whether such fees would amount to profiteering or charging exorbitant fee. In order to see that the proposed fee charged by the school is justified, the FRC was required to consider the prescribed parameters and has to consider that reasonable rate of depreciation on the assets of the school so as to see that the same can be replaced in the regular interval while considering the percentage of reasonable surplus to be considered while determining the fees or fee structure. No error can be found in the said opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge. 27. As regards the quorum, reliance placed by the learned Additional Advocate General on Rule 5 of the Rules’ 2017 is found to be misconceived. Rule 5 provides for the meeting of the FRC for transaction of its business. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 5 provides for quorum at the meeting of the Committee, which shall be at least 2/3rd of the members of the total strength of the Committee. It, however, further provides that if there is no quorum at the meeting, the same shall be adjourned for half an hour and thereafter, the meeting shall be held for the transaction of its business. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 further provides that the Committee may adopt its own procedure for transaction of business as it deems fit. Both these provisions are pressed into service by the learned Additional Advocate General to vehemently urge that the learned Single Judge could not have insisted for the presence of all member of the FRC during the course of discussion for decision in the matter of determination of fee. 28. Both these provisions are pressed into service by the learned Additional Advocate General to vehemently urge that the learned Single Judge could not have insisted for the presence of all member of the FRC during the course of discussion for decision in the matter of determination of fee. 28. To deal with the above submission, we may note the constitution of the Committee as per Section 3(4) of the Act’ 2017, which includes a retired District and Sessions Judge or such other persons as provided in clause (a) of sub-section (4) to be the Chairperson of the Committee. The other four members are the Chartered Accountants; one Civil Engineer/ Government approved Valuer; one representative from the self-financed schools management of the respective zone; and one academician of repute all nominated by the Government. The Committee thus, comprises of domain experts to consider on all aspects of accounting, valuation of the structure and the academics in the matter of determination of fee. 29. In our considered opinion, the presence of all constituent members of the FRC is necessary to take an informed decision on consideration of all relevant factors as per Section 10(1) of the Act’ 2017 for determination of fee. The learned Single Judge has categorically recorded that the impugned decision of the FRC only bears the signature of the Chief Coordinator of the Committee and during the hearing, all the members of the Committee were not present. 30. In view of this finding, we do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge that the FRC being a Quasi- Judicial authority, which determines the fee, shall hold its meeting comprising of all five members to give an effective opportunity of hearing to the school management on the fee proposal submitted by it. 31. Similarly, on the issues pertaining to future development cost, the standard formula applied by the the FRC to allow 10% towards future development cost as reasonable surplus for Rajkot and 7% increase at Surat cannot be said to be justified. No error could be found in the decision of the learned Single Judge that the aspect of the reasonable surplus and future development cost would depend upon the material placed by each school to be verified by the FRC while determining the fee or fee structure. 32. No error could be found in the decision of the learned Single Judge that the aspect of the reasonable surplus and future development cost would depend upon the material placed by each school to be verified by the FRC while determining the fee or fee structure. 32. The opinion formed by the learned Single Judge with regard to the term fee and admission fee that the FRC has restricted the schools from charging such fees though it is part of the fee structure as per Section 2(g) of the Act’ 2017, is found to be perfectly justified. No error can be found in the decision of the learned Single Judge that the term fee and admission fee, which is one time levy by the school is provided as part of the “fee structure” as a separate head under Section 2(g) and, therefore, the FRC could not have prohibited the said fees expressly provided under the Act’ 2017. 33. It has further been noted by the learned Single Judge that some of the FRCs permitted charging of admission fee and term fee, whereas the others have refused. There is, thus, no consistency amongst the FRC to permit charging of term fee as per Section 2(g) of the Act’ 2017. 34. The learned Single Judge has, thus, rightly issued direction that the FRC shall not restrict the school from charging the term fee and the admission fee, which shall not be more than tuition fee of one month as per Section 2(g) of the Act’ 2017. The FRC is, however, required to verify as to whether the admission fee and the term fee charged by the school is within the prescribed time limit and that the schools may not charge the admission fee and term fee in addition to the fee determined by the FRC subject to the limits prescribed in Section 2(g) of the Act’ 2017. 35. Further, no error could be found in the directions on the issue of interest on loan. It has rightly been noted by the learned Single Judge that the FRC is required to determine the fee so as to justify that the same would not result in profiteering or exorbitant fees. 35. Further, no error could be found in the directions on the issue of interest on loan. It has rightly been noted by the learned Single Judge that the FRC is required to determine the fee so as to justify that the same would not result in profiteering or exorbitant fees. However, at the same time, the students, who are studying in self- financed schools are aware about the facilities which they may get together with the fact that any school which started with a financial help is required to pay the interest every year on loan and if such interest is not recovered from the fees, it would be impossible to run the school. The learned Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in holding that the interest is fixed on the cost incurred by such school, which is to be paid periodically and invariably so as to see that the school continues to impart education and in absence of non-payment of interest, the financial institution would not permit the school to run. The stand taken by the FRC that the students cannot be burdened with the cost of interest for a fixed term of repayment of loan and the same is required to be separated over the life of the asset acquired by the loan is a highly socialistic approach contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court for determination of fee of self-financed institution for imparting education. No error can be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the decision of the FRC for amortizing of interest over the life of the asset instead of allowing claim of the interest on loan paid by the school during the year under consideration. 36. In the crux, having carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the writ Court, we do not find any error. The FRC being a quasi-judicial authority was required to follow the provisions of the Act’ 2017 and the Rules’ 2017 made thereunder while examining the fee proposal submitted by the schools to arrive at the conclusion, on a case to case basis, as to whether the proposal of the institution is justified on the standards prescribed under the Act’ 2017 and whether the claims made by it amounts to profiteering. In any case, there cannot be any standardization of various factors which are to be included in the matter of determination of fee as per Section 10 of the Act’ 2017 and inquiry in the individual case by applying the principles of natural justice is required to be conducted. The FRC is empowered to summon witnesses, make inspections and call for the documentary evidences during the course of inquiry as per Section 8(3) of the Act’ 2017. 37. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeals in this bunch are dismissed, being devoid of merits. Consequently, connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.” 4. In view of the judgment and order passed by this Court, present Letters Patent Appeal and connected Civil Application also stand disposed of accordingly.