1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.(L) 81 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.(L) 81 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.(L) 81 OF 2006 Shri. Ailak Pannalal Digambar Jain Pathashala and anr. ... Petitioners Versus Shikshan Shulka Samiti & Ors. Respondents Mr. L.M. Acharya for Petitioners. Mr. M.D. Naik, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : MARCH 13, 2006 DATED : MARCH 13, 2006 DATED : MARCH 13, 2006 P.C. . It is the case of the Petitioner that they had approached the committee for fixation of the fee structure. The committee had fixed fees for three academic years. It is the further case that pursuant to the observations of the Apex Court, the Petitioners once again went to the committee wherein they had applied for upward revision of the fee structure. The committee instead of upward revision has in fact decreased the fees which were earlier fixed by the previous committee. . We do not want to go into the controversy. it will be open to the Petitioner to file a fresh 2 application before the committee as now constituted and make out whatever case they have, including to point out the inconsistencies in the second order which was made for enhancement of the fees structure. It is for the committee after considering all aspects to pass appropriate orders according to law. It is the case of the Petitioner that their proposal is at Exh. I. The committee to consider that proposal and thereafter to dispose of the same according to law. (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)