JUDGMENT : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. The present writ appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 05.12.2023, passed in a batch of writ petitions bearing Nos.32909, 32967, 35109 of 2022; 20878 and 22945 of 2023. Since the issues of fact and law in this set of cases are same, we propose to deal with them by way of a common judgment and order. A batch of writ petitions came to be filed by private unaided engineering colleges established in the State of Andhra Pradesh as also by the Associations representing some of the Engineering colleges. The petitions are filed challenging the notification, dated 30.06.2022, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission requiring data to be furnished as prescribed in 31 Schedules described in the guidelines with a view to fix the fee which the colleges would be permitted to charge. The petitioners' case in brief was that some of the information sought by the Commission was unnecessary and irrelevant besides being cumbersome. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to briefly state the facts as under : 2. There is in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh an Act called the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 2019”). The said Act, according to the preamble, was enacted “to establish the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission to maintain standards of education, regulation of fee, service condition of teachers and safeguard the interest of students and to ensure public spiritedness, equity, excellence, financial stability and probity along with good governance and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” The Act is meant to apply to all higher educational institutions including medical, dental, agriculture, horticulture, engineering and veterinary institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Commission is headed by a Chairperson, who is to be a retired Judge of the High Court and other members, in terms of Section 4 of the said Act. Chapter III deals with powers and functions of the Commission. Section 9(ii), in particular, provides that the Commission shall have the power to monitor and regulate fee in higher educational institutions in accordance with the rules, guidelines and procedures prescribed for that purpose. 3. Chapter III deals with powers and functions of the Commission. Section 9(ii), in particular, provides that the Commission shall have the power to monitor and regulate fee in higher educational institutions in accordance with the rules, guidelines and procedures prescribed for that purpose. 3. Section 9(a) of the Act envisages the Commission to ensure that standards of admission, teaching, examination, research, qualification of teachers and infrastructure, are maintained by the higher educational institutions in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Regulatory Authorities of the Central Government from time to time. Section 9(b) of the Act further envisages that the Commission shall have the power to monitor and regulate fee in higher educational institutions in accordance with the rules, guidelines and procedures, prescribed for the purpose. 4. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 1 of Section 23 of the Act of 2019, the rules called as „the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019? (for short, “the Rules”) have been framed. Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with the power of the Commission to call from each institution its proposed fee structure well in advance along with the relevant documents and books of account for scrutiny. The Commission in terms of Rule 8(2) has the power to decide whether the fee proposed by the institutions is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee. Rule 8(3) vests in the Commission the liberty to approve or alter the proposed fee for each course to be charged by the institution. The proviso, however, envisages that it shall give the institution an opportunity of being heard before fixing any fee or fees. Rule 8(4) requires the Commission to 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 Rules further envisage that the Commission shall communicate the fee structure as determined by it to the Government for notification under Act 5 of 1983. It has been further envisaged that the fee determined by the Commission shall be valid for a period of three years. Rule 8(7) envisages further that 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. 6. Section 22 of the Act envisages framing of regulations with a prior approval of the Government. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section 1 of Section 22 of the Act of 2019, the Government approved the Regulations called as the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Regulations, 2020 (for short, “the Regulations”). 7. The said Regulations were notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 5 th March 2020. Regulation 4(4) inter alia envisages that the Commission shall have the power to request a higher educational institution to furnish information as may be necessary for enabling the Commission to regulate the conduct of admissions and/or to fix the fee in respect of each course offered in the institution. Regulation 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Regulations, 2020, (for short, “the Regulations”) envisages that the Commission shall decide whether the fees collected or proposed to be collected by the institutions, whatsoever under all heads including hostel and mess charges is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee. It further provides that the decision of the Commission shall be final provided that such decision shall be taken only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the institution to represent its case. 8. For facility of reference, the relevant sub-regulations in Regulation 5 are reproduced hereunder: “(6) For furnishing the fee proposal by the Institution, the Institutions shall submit audited statements of income and expenditure, balance sheets and particulars of expenditure including salaries, infrastructure, hostel & mess facilities and such other information as the Commission may prescribe along with the necessary supporting documents, ledgers and Bank statements in PDF files. (7) The fee proposals furnished by the Institutions have to be evaluated based on the income and expenditure of the Institutions as well as the societies/trusts under whose umbrella the said Institutions are established. (8) The Institutions shall submit all the required financial information as per the mercantile (accrual) system of accounting only. (9) The Institution shall submit the required information such as the details of the fee collections, income and expenditure statements, teaching and non-teaching staff salaries of all kinds, administrative and other expenses, statement of revenue grants received, utilization of amounts collected under the NRI quota, details of Term Deposits of the Institutions, details of the loans received from the Societies, Banks/Financial Institutions and loans received from other non-banking Financial Institutions, statements of corpus / capital fund, capital grants received and utilised, grants/funds received from any source on account of research projects and their utilization details, legal expenditures, student result particulars and other information. (10) In order to consider the expenditure on teaching and non- teaching staff, the cadre strength fixed by the respective regulatory authorities and accreditation bodies needs to be adopted. (12) In case of any infrastructure and/or services of any staff utilized for more than one programme, the expenditure on such infrastructure and/or staff shall be apportioned appropriately, based on students strength, among the different programmes. (19) The Institutions shall maintain details of student fee collection and utilization, salaries of teaching and nonteaching staff, faculty details subject wise, particulars of infrastructure and other expenditure and furnish the same online to the Commission. (20) If the details required under these guidelines are not furnished or the financial statements furnished are found inaccurate, the financial statements shall not be considered for the fee proposals. (34) The fee approved by the Commission at any point in time shall be valid for a period of three years next; and subsequent change in fees, if any, shall be applicable only in respect of new admissions. (35) The Commission may recommend the fee in Private Aided or Unaided Higher Educational Institution for different professional programmes of study and different categories of students, having due regard to the guidelines, if any, notified by Regulatory Authorities from time to time. (36) (a). (35) The Commission may recommend the fee in Private Aided or Unaided Higher Educational Institution for different professional programmes of study and different categories of students, having due regard to the guidelines, if any, notified by Regulatory Authorities from time to time. (36) (a). The principle of determining uniform fee structure for all students of Higher Education Institutions shall not come in the way of determining differential fee structure to benefit the more meritorious sections of students admitted under the convener quota from that of the Management and NRI quota; (b) The institution shall be at liberty to collect the fee for the Management quota seats up to two (2) times of the fee notified for the Convener quota of seats in order to maintain quality of education by providing proper infrastructural and instructional facilities and amenities;” 9. The Commission issued a notification, dated 30.06.2022, calling for requisite data to be entered into the relevant portal pertaining to the fee proposals of each institution for the block period of 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26. The data which was required to be furnished was as per relevant Schedules 1 to 31, as contained in the annexure to the notification. The Commission issued a notification, dated 30.06.2022, calling for requisite data to be entered into the relevant portal pertaining to the fee proposals of each institution for the block period of 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26. The data which was required to be furnished was as per relevant Schedules 1 to 31, as contained in the annexure to the notification. For facility of reference, the details which were required to be furnished as per Schedules 1 to 31 are reproduced hereunder: SCHEDULE DETAILS TO BE FURNISHED IN THE SCHEDULE SCHEDULE - 1 Programme wise (which includes year wise & category wise) Fee Collections of the institution SCHEDULE - 2 Statement of Other Income of the institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 3 Eligible Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020- 2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 4 Other Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020- 2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 5 Regular Non Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 6 Contract Non Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 7 Statement of Legal Expenditure (2020-2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 8 Statement of Gardening Expenditure (2020-2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 9 Statement of Expenditure on Seminars, Workshops, Student Related Expenditure, Fests (2020-2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 10 Statement of Expenditure on Scholarships, Merit Awards etc., Spent by the Institution (2020-2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 11 Statement of Administrative & Other Expenses of the institution (2020- 2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 12 Statement of Finance Costs of the institution (2020-2021) & (2021- 2022) SCHEDULE - 13 Statement of Fixed Assets Schedule for Depreciation SCHEDULE - 14 Statement of Grants Received and Utilisation from the Government and Other sources like TEQIP, MHRD etc. (2020-2021) & (2021-2022) SCHEDULE - 15 Statement of Stipend Expenditure SCHEDULE - 16 Statement of Institutional and Quality Parameters SCHEDULE - 17 Statement of Utilisation Expenditure for the Block Period of 2020-2021 to 2022-2023 by the Institution SCHEDULE - 18 Statement of Proposed Expenditure for the Block Period of 2023-2024 to 2025-2026 by the Institution SCHEDULE - 19 Statement of Fixed Deposits of the institution SCHEDULE - 20 Statement of Loans Received from Societies, Banks/ Financial Institution by the institution and Others SCHEDULE - 21 Independent Income & Expenditure of the Society/Trust SCHEDULE - 22 Independent Balance Sheet of the Society/Trust SCHEDULE - 23 Institute-wise Balance Sheet of the Society/Trust SCHEDULE - 24 Information Relating to all the Institutions running under the Society/Trust for the year 2021-22 SCHEDULE - 25 Details of Salary Payments as per Form 24Q SCHEDULE - 26 Details of Expenditure on which Tax Deducted Sourses as per IT Act. SCHEDULE - 27 Details of Building Infrastructure & Each Programmes wise All Rooms, Hostel Building Separately for the year 2021-22 SCHEDULE - 28 Details of Lab Equipment Each Programme wise for the year 2021-22 SCHEDULE - 29 Details of Other Areas (Hostel Building Separately) for the year 2021-22 SCHEDULE - 30 Cash Payments made in excess of Rs.5,000- for each entry etc. SCHEDULE - 31 B ooks of account (Cash/Bank/Day Book , All Ledgers) in pdf format, Bank statements directly down loaded from concerned Bank web sites in pdf format, copy of income-tax return-7 and Each course wise audited financial statements certified by Chartered Accountants (2020-2021) & (2021-2022) 10. Being aggrieved of the requirement to furnish the data in terms of Schedules 1 to 31, writ petitions came to be filed individually as also one claiming to be in the name of association alleging that it was not humanly possible to enter the data, which was otherwise required as per the schedules which entailed uploading of each and every accounting entry of the institutions. It was urged that it was not necessary to upload each and every accounting entry of the institutions apart from PAN, Aadhar copies of faculty, Form-16 of each and every employee, Bank account details, date of birth, date of admission, pay scales etc. The petitioners' contention was each institution, therefore, requires entering 12,000 to 15,000 entries into the portal which was not humanly possible. The petitioners' contention was each institution, therefore, requires entering 12,000 to 15,000 entries into the portal which was not humanly possible. Apart from this, it was urged that the petitioners were also required to file physical copies of books of accounts i.e., cash/bank/day book, ledgers in PDF format apart from Bank statements, income tax returns etc., along with copies of each and every bill and voucher. It was also the case of the petitioners that out of the 31 schedules prescribed by respondent No.2, thirteen schedules did not relate to the evaluation of fee structure. The thirteen schedules identified by the petitioners were Schedule Nos.7, 8, 10, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31. 11. From the record, it appears that W.P. No.32909 of 2022 came up for consideration before the learned single Judge of this Court whereby, as an interim measure, the learned single Judge, by virtue of the order, dated 12.10.2022, directed the Commission not to insist on calling for information in regard to certain expenses. For purposes of clarity, the relevant portion of the interim order, dated 12.10.2022, is reproduced hereunder: “.. The learned Senior Counsel pointing out this schedule as fixed by the 2nd respondent submits that this information is not required either under the Act or under the Rules made there under for the purpose of discharging the functions by the 2nd respondent in the matter of regulation of fee for the petitioners? institutions. … The contention of the learned Senior Counsel finds force to that extent. In view of the same, the process should go on pursuant to the impugned notification dated 30-06-2022 and in so far as furnishing of all the details by the petitioners are concerned under the schedules like Statement of Legal Expenditure, Statement of Gardening Expenditure, Statement of Expenditure on Seminars, Workshops, Student Related Expenditure, Fests, Statement of Institutional and Quality Parameters, Independent Balance Sheet of the Society/Trust, and the details of Tax Deductions at Source as per I.T Act they shall not be insisted by the 2nd respondent at this stage from the petitioners and in so far as the rest of the details are concerned the same can be furnished by the petitioners and any regulation of fee is subject to outcome of this Writ Petition. In so far as the salary expenditure and other expenditure are concerned, the actuals should be furnished by the petitioners and the same shall be considered by the respondents.” Subsequently, by virtue of order, dated 12.07.2023, passed in the same petition, there was a direction to the Commission not to notify the fee for the academic years 2023-26, till 18.07.2023. 12. The issue came up again before the learned single Judge when it was brought to the notice of the Court that the fee for academic year 2023-24 had not been finalized, the counsel appearing for the Higher Education Department made a statement that tentatively the fee which was fixed for the academic year 2022-23 would be considered for the academic year 2023-24 till the fee is finally fixed. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the fee which was already fixed for academic year 2022-23 should be enhanced by at least 15% on the fee which was otherwise chargeable to2022-23 considering the inflation factor. The Court then ordered thus: “… Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents and on perusal of the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the factor of inflation is an admitted factor by the Government as well as other public/financial institutions, the enhancement of fee at the reasonable rate is mandatory due to increase in price raise and expenditure. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the existing fee of the academic year 2022-2023 at the rate of 10% for the present academic year 2023-2024, but as far as minimum fee is concerned it should be enhanced more than 10% and finally it is agreed at Rs.43,000/- by all the stake holders. For the reasons stated above, the respondents are directed to notify and publish minimum fee at Rs.43,000/- and in respect of other colleges whose existing fee for the year 2022-2023 is more than minimum fees, its fees should be enhanced from the existing fee of the academic year 2022-2023 at the rate of 10% for the present academic year 2023- 2024, as a tentative measure till the finalization of the fee by the Respondent Commission and subject to result of the writ petition. …” 13. …” 13. By virtue of its subsequent order, dated 19.09.2023, the Court clarified that the orders of the Court regarding fixation of the fee would be subject to the final orders of the Court and that the students be informed accordingly. 14. It appears that vide G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 06.08.2023, the State Government issued a notification for fixation of fee for B.Tech, B.Arch and Marine Engineering programs for the private unaided professional higher education institutions. In the said notification, the term „fee? was defined as under: “The fee is an all-inclusive annual fee, including like tuition fee, affiliation fee, cost of identity card, medical fee, inter college/ inter university sports, games & cultural meet fee, computer/ internet fee, College magazine and student activities, student health care scheme, student welfare fund, study tour, alumni fund, sports and games fee, examination fee including stationery, maintenance and amenities fee, extracurricular activities fee, development fee, Recognition fee Common Services Fee and other recurring expenditure." 15. Subsequently, it appears that the Commission based upon the data which was furnished, to the Commission, to the exclusion of the data which was otherwise prescribed by the schedules, as per the directions of the Court in its order, dated 12.10.2022, made recommendations to the Government. The Government, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 07.07.2024, proceeded to notify the fee for the academic year 2024-25 in regard to various colleges tentatively on account of the pendency of the legal proceedings before this Court. 16. G.O.Ms.No.41 came under challenge in W.P.Nos.20878 and 22945 of 2023. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned single Judge held that G.O.Ms.No.41 to be bad, illegal and contrary to Rule 2(b) of the Rules inasmuch as the rules defining „fee? envisaged only tuition fee and development charges and not the cost of the identity card, medical fee and other fees, which were stipulated in the notification, dated 06.08.2023. 17. The learned single Judge held that the Commission had not discharged its statutory obligation in not providing worksheets to the petitioners with a view to justify the fee fixed in respect of the petitioners? institutions. 17. The learned single Judge held that the Commission had not discharged its statutory obligation in not providing worksheets to the petitioners with a view to justify the fee fixed in respect of the petitioners? institutions. It was also held that the educational institutions like the petitioners ought to be given their autonomy for fixing the fee structure and that the regulatory power of the State or its instrumentalities were only limited to ensuring that the institution did not indulge in commercialization of education by collecting capitation fee. It was also held that fixation of slabs for a number of heads under the fee component was contrary to the Act and the rules and therefore unsustainable. Finally the petitions were disposed of with the following directions: “23. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are disposed of, remanding to the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission with the following directions: a. The worksheets should be furnished to the institutions who requested for them and who provided relevant data for determining the fees during the slab period of 2023-2026 b. Slabs particular limit cannot be fixed for any expenditure category submitted by the institution; rather, they should be assessed based on solely on the relevant data as provided by the institution c. Notifying the Tuition Fee, inclusive of numerous heads (in contradiction to the definition of 'Fee' in accordance with the Act and Rules), is deemed illegal and arbitrary. Additionally, the Fee must be formally notified in adherence to the Act and Rules. d. While fixing the fee, the Commission should address the claims of the petitioners taking into consideration the rate of inflation, increased expenditure, actual average intake instead of sanctioned strength, accreditations, further improvements towards amenities and research oriented facilities, especially for professional institutions.” 18. While Mr. Additionally, the Fee must be formally notified in adherence to the Act and Rules. d. While fixing the fee, the Commission should address the claims of the petitioners taking into consideration the rate of inflation, increased expenditure, actual average intake instead of sanctioned strength, accreditations, further improvements towards amenities and research oriented facilities, especially for professional institutions.” 18. While Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Commission urged that the view expressed by the single Judge is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the requirement of furnishing data as per the notification impugned, dated 30.06.2022, was necessary to fix the fee of a particular college with a view to ensure that there was no profiteering by the respective colleges, it was stated that the data, as was required in the 31 schedules, was furnished by as many as 93 colleges, who had already submitted the data as per the prescribed schedules and that there was no reason as to why, if those colleges could produce the relevant data, the petitioners could not do the same. It was urged that the data required as per 31 schedules was relevant for scrutiny of expenditure which would thus help the Commission in curtailing profiteering or commercialization of education, and in the absence of data, it would be difficult to arrive at a reasonable fee structure for each institution. It was also highlighted that ingenious methods were adopted by the colleges to claim higher fee in the fee proposal submitted by them, more so, in regard to legal expenditure, expenditure on gardening, organization of seminars, workshops, where crores are claimed to have been spent and therefore, if such expenditure were to be allowed by the appellant Commission without regulating the same, it would allow the institutions to indulge in profiteering. It was also the stand of the appellant that, with a view to curb the tendency of claiming exorbitant amounts under the head „gardening? where in the past, the institutions were claiming amounts ranging from Rs.5 lakhs to one crore, a slab of Rs.5 lakhs was fixed per institution for which a separate schedule is provided to limit the burden on students, as ultimately, it is the students who have to face the burden of the increased fee structure. where in the past, the institutions were claiming amounts ranging from Rs.5 lakhs to one crore, a slab of Rs.5 lakhs was fixed per institution for which a separate schedule is provided to limit the burden on students, as ultimately, it is the students who have to face the burden of the increased fee structure. As regards the seminars and workshops, it is stated that the slab has been fixed between Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs depending on the admitted strength of students in each institution. 19. With regard to the verification of the payment made to teaching and non-teaching staff, the stand taken is that the income and expenditure statements approved by the auditors, which are submitted to the Commission along with fee proposals, are totally incorrect, and that authentic documents were not being provided by the members of the petitioner Association, as was required, and that information as regards the payment of TDS for teaching and non-teaching staff, was also not being furnished, as it would help in crosschecking the expenditure statement given by the institutions. Further, the stand of the appellant is that cash expenditure in excess of Rs.5,000/- is to be disallowed as per the guidelines of the Commission. However, the institutions resort to splitting of the payments to make it less than Rs.5,000/-, and therefore, the expenditure is required to be verified. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant would further place reliance upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association v. the State of Telangana , [ 2019 7 SCC 172 ] wherein the Apex Court had set aside the order passed by the High Court of Telangana by holding that it had exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the recommendations of Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee. In the aforementioned case, the Apex Court was considering the extent to which the High Court could examine the determination of fee structure by the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee in exercise of its power of judicial review. It held that the Court should be loath to interfere with the recommendations of expert bodies unless it suffered from arbitrariness and irrationality, or violated any provisions of the law under which it is constituted. It held that the Court should be loath to interfere with the recommendations of expert bodies unless it suffered from arbitrariness and irrationality, or violated any provisions of the law under which it is constituted. It further held that the Could cannot sit as an appellant authority and opine in regard to which manner the fee regulation committee ought to have proceeded without any finding of violation of rules or procedure. It held that the statutory body had not exercised jurisdiction properly and the only option is to remand the matter for fresh consideration and not to usurp the powers of the authority. It held that the Court in the garb of judicial review cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the decision maker and take the decision itself as the judicial review lies not against the decision but the decision making process. 21. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, on the other hand, placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Thomas P. John , [ (2008) 8 SCC 82 ] and in particular, para No.16, which reads as under: “16. A reading of the aforesaid judgments would reveal that the broad principle is that an educational institution must be left to its own devices in the matter of fixation of fee though profiteering or the imposition of capitation fee is to be ruled out and that some amount towards surplus funds available to an institution must be permitted and visualized but it has also been laid down by inference that if the broad principles with regard to fixation of fee are adopted, an educational institution cannot be called upon to explain the receipts and the expenses as before a Chartered Accountant. We find that the observations of the Division Bench of the High Court that no rational basis for the fixation of a higher fee for two years had been furnished, lays down an onus on the educational institution, which would be difficult for it to discharge with accuracy.” A lot of emphasis was thus laid by learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the fee fixation Commission could not have sought details from the petitioners as if the same were being scrutinized by a Chartered Accountant. It was thus urged that the view expressed by the learned single Judge was justified in law and warranted no interference. 22. It was thus urged that the view expressed by the learned single Judge was justified in law and warranted no interference. 22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 23. It is settled law that the decision on the fee, which can be charged by private unaided educational institutions, which were not dependent on any funds from the Government, is to be left to such private educational institutions and that fixing a rigid fee structure would be an unacceptable restriction. In this regard, the Apex Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka , [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ] in para Nos.54 and 56 held thus: “54. The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure (including qualified staff) and the prevention of maladministration by those in charge of management. The fixing of a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a governing body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominating students for admissions would be unacceptable restrictions. 56. An educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution. Different courses of study are usually taught by teachers who have to be recruited as per qualifications that may be prescribed. It is no secret that better working conditions will attract better teachers. More amenities will ensure that better students seek admission to that institution. One cannot lose sight of the fact that providing good amenities to the students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other infrastructure costs money. It has, therefore, to be left to the institution, if it chooses not to seek any aid from the Government, to determine the scale of fee that it can charge from the students. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that we live in a competitive world today, where professional education is in demand. We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private parties who do not seek any governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective student has various options open to him/her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private parties who do not seek any governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective student has various options open to him/her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. The decision on the fee to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational institution that does not seek or is not dependent upon any funds from the Government.” 24. With a view to regulate the fee structures and with a view to prevent profiteering, the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka , [ (2003) 6 SCC 697 ] held: “7. … Each institute will be entitled to have its own fee structure. The fee structure for each institute must be fixed keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities available, the investments made, salaries paid to the teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or betterment of the institution etc. Of course there can be no profiteering and capitation fees cannot be charged. It thus needs to be emphasized that as per the majority judgment imparting of education is essentially charitable in nature. Thus the surplus/profit that can be generated must be only for the benefit/use of that educational institution. Profits/surplus cannot be diverted for any other use or purpose and cannot be used for personal gain or for any other business or enterprise. As, at present, there are statutes/regulations which govern the fixation of fees and as this Court has not yet considered the validity of those statutes/regulations, we direct that in order to give effect to the judgment in T.M.A. Pai case, the respective State Governments/concerned authority shall set up, in each State, a committee headed by a retired High Court Judge who shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State. The other member, who shall be nominated by the Judge, should be a Chartered Accountant of repute. A representative of the Medical Council of India (in short “MCI”) or the All India Council for Technical Education (in short “AICTE”), depending on the type of institution, shall also be a member. The Secretary of the State Government in charge of Medical Education or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall be a member and Secretary of the Committee. The Secretary of the State Government in charge of Medical Education or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall be a member and Secretary of the Committee. The Committee should be free to nominate/co-opt another independent person of repute, so that the total number of members of the Committee shall not exceed five. Each educational institute must place before this Committee, well in advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure. Along with the proposed fee structure all relevant documents and books of accounts must also be produced before the Committee for their scrutiny. The Committee shall then decide whether the fees proposed by that institute are justified and are not profiteering or charging capitation fee. The Committee will be at liberty to approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee which can be charged by the institute. The fee fixed by the Committee shall be binding for a period of three years, at the end of which period the institute would be at liberty to apply for revision. Once fees are fixed by the Committee, the institute cannot charge either directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. If any other amount is charged, under any other head or guise e.g. donations, the same would amount to charging of capitation fee. The Governments/appropriate authorities should consider framing appropriate regulations, if not already framed, whereunder if it is found that an institution is charging capitation fees or profiteering that institution can be appropriately penalised and also face the prospect of losing its recognition/affiliation. … 154. The fee structure, thus, in relation to each and every college must be determined separately keeping in view several factors including, facilities available, infrastructure made available, the age of the institution, investment made, future plan for expansion and betterment of the educational standard etc. The case of each institution in this behalf is required to be considered by an appropriate Committee. For the said purpose, even the book of accounts maintained by the institution may have to be looked into. Whatever is determined by the Committee by way of a fee structure having regard to relevant factors some, of which are enumerated hereinbefore, the management of the institution would not be entitled to charge anything more. 155. For the said purpose, even the book of accounts maintained by the institution may have to be looked into. Whatever is determined by the Committee by way of a fee structure having regard to relevant factors some, of which are enumerated hereinbefore, the management of the institution would not be entitled to charge anything more. 155. While determining the fee structure, safeguard has to be provided for so that professional institutions do not become auction houses for the purpose of selling seats. Having regard to the statement of law laid down in para 56 of the judgment, it would have been better, if sufficient guidelines could have been provided for. Such a task which is a difficult one has to be left to the Committee. While fixing the fee structure the Committee shall also take into consideration, inter alia, the salary or remuneration paid to the members of the faculty and other staff, the investment made by them, the infrastructure provided and plan for future development, of the institution as also expansion of the educational institution. Future planning or improvement of facilities may be provided for. An institution may want to invest in an expensive device (for medical colleges) or a powerful computer (for technical college). These factors are also required to be taken care of. The State must evolve a detailed procedure for constitution and smooth functioning of the Committee. 156. While this Court has not laid down any fixed guidelines as regard fee structure, in my opinion, reasonable surplus should ordinarily vary from 6% to 15%, as such surplus would be utilized for expansion of the system and development of education.” 25. In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra , [ (2005) 6 SCC 537 ] , while sounding a note of caution to the committees, the Apex Court held: “149. ..We expect the Committees, so long as they remain functional, to be more sensitive and to act rationally and reasonably with due regard for realities. In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra , [ (2005) 6 SCC 537 ] , while sounding a note of caution to the committees, the Apex Court held: “149. ..We expect the Committees, so long as they remain functional, to be more sensitive and to act rationally and reasonably with due regard for realities. They should refrain from generalizing fee structures and, where needed, should go into accounts, schemes, plans and budgets of an individual institution for the purpose of finding out what would be an ideal and reasonable fee structure for that institution.” These observations were made on the basis that some committees had indulged in assuming powers which had come in for severe criticism for fixing a fee structure, which was abysmally low and rendered the functioning of the institutions almost impossible or made the institutions run into losses. A balance, therefore, has to be maintained between the genuine efforts of an educational institution to ensure efficiency, quality and productivity and not to provide a fee structure which is unrealistic, leading to closure, while at the same time, the institutions are also under an obligation to fix a fee structure which does not allow them to indulge in profiteering. It is precisely for that reason that the Act, Rules and Regulations supra as mentioned hereinabove were enacted. 26. Although a stand was taken by the petitioners in the writ petition with regard to the schedules being irrelevant and unnecessary, yet there was no finding recorded by the learned single Judge on that issue as to whether the said information, which was sought in terms of the notification made, dated 30.06.2022, was unjustified or beyond the scope of the power vested in the Commission to seek such an information. The petitioners also did not file any review against the judgment and order impugned before the learned single Judge on the absence of such a finding in the judgment and order impugned, if at all it had been argued. In the ordinary circumstance, a review petition ought to have been filed, which certainly had not been done in the instant case. The writ petitioners, therefore, cannot succeed on that ground. 27. Even otherwise, Regulation 4.4 of the Regulations framed under the Act empowers the Commission to call for such information as may be necessary for enabling the Commission to fix the fee in respect of such an institution. The writ petitioners, therefore, cannot succeed on that ground. 27. Even otherwise, Regulation 4.4 of the Regulations framed under the Act empowers the Commission to call for such information as may be necessary for enabling the Commission to fix the fee in respect of such an institution. For facility of reference, Regulation 4.4 is reproduced hereunder: “(4) The Commission shall have the power to request a Higher Educational Institution to furnish information as may be necessary for enabling the Commission to regulate the conduct of admission(s) and/or to fix the fee in respect of each course offered in the Institution(s).” 28. In the instant case, information that is sought in terms of Schedules does not appear to us to be in any manner, irrelevant or beyond the scope of powers, which are otherwise vested in the Commission and, in particular, Regulation 4.4 of the Regulations. 29. Insofar as the fixation of slabs by the Commission in regard to Gardening expenses, holding of seminars etc., are concerned, the same do not find any basis either under the Act or the Rules and Regulations. In fact, there cannot be any slabs fixed by the Commission which is entrusted with the job of only scrutinizing whether the fee which is claimed under those heads is justified or not. Each case will have to be scrutinized individually and the expense would have to be justified by that particular institution. There may be cases where the actual expenses could exceed the slab limits either in holding of seminars or for that matter, gardening or payment of legal expenses if they are otherwise reliable and connected to the functioning of the institution. While it may be true that the burden of an unjustified claim under any of the heads might ultimately be apportioned in the shape of fee among the students, it is precisely for that reason that the Commission?s regulatory power comes into play to check on the basis of the information that is sought under various schedules to see whether the claim is genuine and justified or not. 30. 30. We are not inclined to accept the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the Government could not have notified the fee as all inclusive fee which included tuition fee, affiliation fee, cost of identity card, medical fee, inter-college/inter-university sports, games & cultural meet fee, computer/internet fee, college magazine and student activities, student healthcare scheme, student welfare fund, study tour, alumni fund, sports and games fee, examination fee etc., which was recommended by the Fee Regulatory Commission to the Government on the ground that it was contrary to Rule 2(b) of the Rules. 31. For facility of reference, Rule 2(b) of the Rules, reads as under: “(b) “fee” means all fees including tuition fee and development charges;” As against this, learned single Judge recorded his finding as under: “20. From the above, as per Rule 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitory Commission Rules, 2019, “fee” means all fees including tuition fee and development charges. But, as per the Notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.41 Higher Education (R.M) Department dated 06.08.2023, „fee? is defined as inclusive of annual fee which included various heads. Thus, the Commission traversed beyond the Rules, as such the action of the 2nd respondent is nothing but illegal and arbitrary.” 32. On a plain reading of Rule 2(b), it is clear that the definition of „fee? is not exhaustive as was misinterpreted by the learned single Judge but was an inclusive definition and could include the fee on various heads in addition to the tuition fee and development charges. 33. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the institutions are entitled to be provided the worksheets pertaining to their respective institutions to know as to what was the basis for fixing fee by the Commission. Regulation 5.5 of the Regulations in this regard is relevant and reads as under: “(5) The Commission shall decide whether the fees collected or proposed to be collected by the Institutions, whatsoever under all heads including hostel & mess charges, is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee. The decision of the Commission shall be final provided that such decision shall be taken only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the institution to represent its case.” 34. The decision of the Commission shall be final provided that such decision shall be taken only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the institution to represent its case.” 34. Whenever a fee proposal is submitted to the Commission, the Commission, after scrutinizing the relevant data, which is produced by an institution arrives at a particular amount, which it feels is chargeable by that college from a particular candidate after considering the various relevant heads on which the institution claims the fee as chargeable. The right of hearing as envisaged under Regulation 5.5 would be effective and meaningful only if the worksheets or copies thereof are furnished to the respective institutions, who make a request for the same, before giving them a reasonable opportunity to represent their case. A reasonable opportunity to represent the case before the Commission decides to slash the proposed fee would be meaningless, as at the stage of hearing, before the Commission takes a decision on the proposed fee structure, the Commission does not disclose its mind to an institution. The worksheet would ordinarily contain as to what was claimed and what was disallowed. Such a worksheet then ought to be provided to the institution, which would then come forward to justify as to how the slashing of the fee under a particular head was unjustified. 35. We do not find any basis for upholding the direction as contained in para 23(d) of the judgment to the extent it orders that while fixing the fee, the actual average intake of students be considered instead of sanctioned strength of students for the reason that the same is not otherwise traceable to the rules and regulations in force. 36. In our opinion, the fee structure has to be regulated and determined strictly in accordance with the rules and in particular Rule 8(4) of the Rules. We are also of the opinion that the interim directions issued by the learned single Judge on 12.10.2022, preventing the Commission from seeking information with regard to the various heads led to an incorrect assessment of the fee structure of the institutions. We are also of the opinion that the interim directions issued by the learned single Judge on 12.10.2022, preventing the Commission from seeking information with regard to the various heads led to an incorrect assessment of the fee structure of the institutions. Since we have already held that the information which was sought for by the Commission in terms of Schedules 1 to 31 were all relevant and were required for a proper determination of the fee structure, the present set of cases are disposed of with the following directions: While directions 23(a) and 23(b) of the impugned judgment and order are upheld, direction 23(c) is set aside. In regard to direction 23(d), it is ordered that the Commission shall determine the fee structure strictly in terms of the Rules and, in particular, Rule 8(4) of the Rules. Direction 23(d) shall, accordingly, stand modified to that extent. The writ petitioners shall, within two weeks from today, furnish all the material data as is otherwise envisaged to be provided in terms of the notification, dated 30.06.2022, in schedules 1 to 31. The Commission, after considering the data, shall tentatively determine the fee. The worksheets or copies thereof be furnished to the institutions, who may then be given an opportunity to make a representation in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules read with Regulation 5.5 of the Regulations and if any fee which is claimed under a particular head is disallowed, the Commission should record reasons for such a disallowance and communicate the same to the respective institutions. The fees fixed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 07.07.2024, shall be considered to be tentative and shall be subject to a fee structure which is duly assessed, recommended and accepted by the Government. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.