IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.09.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.A.K.GANGULY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA W.P.Nos.20666, 23268, 25284, 25351, 25704 & 26250 of 2007 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions W.P.No.20666 of 2007: Dr.Rajah Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust Rep. by its Trustee K.Chidambaram Rani Seethai Hall, V Floor No.603, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 .. Petitioner -vs- 1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government Health & Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009 2. The Permanent Committee for the Fixation of Fees in Self Financing Professional Colleges Rep.by its Chairman 7-A, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai 600 028 (R4 impleaded as per order dated 02.08.2007 by Honourable CJ & PJMJ in MP2/07 & 4/07 in WP.23268/07 & 20666/07) 3. The Director of Medical Education Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 4. Parents Association of Students studying under Government Quota in Self financing/Private Medical Colleges of Tamil Nadu, Chennai (reg.56/07) rep. by its Secretary, No.57, Chinnababu Street, Nammalwarpet, Chennai - 600012. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the second respondent committee passed in No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-3 dated 4.6.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to approve the tuition fee for the MBBS Course in respect of the petitioner institution for the academic year 2007-08 and onwards as determined by the petitioner at Rs.4,05,000/- per student per annum. For Petitioner :: Mr.Nageswara Rao Senior Counsel for Mr.Sathish Parasaran For Respondents :: Mr.G.Sankaran Special Govt. Pleader (Edn.) W.P.No.23268 of 2007: P.S.G.Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004 An institution under PSG & Sons' Charities, Rep.by its Principal, Dr.S.Ramalingam .. Petitioner -vs- 01. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009 02. Committee for Fixation of Fee in Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Rep.by its Member Secretary Greenways Road Chennai 600 028 03. S.K.Sethuraman 04. V.Parivallal 05. N.P.Sampath 06. E.Kasmeer 07. G.Udayakumar 08. J.Vetriselvan 09. Dr.S.Tito 10. K.Seeralan 11. S.K.Lingasamy 12. Shajahan 13. Dr.P.Sathivelu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. M.Thayanithi 15. N.Christopher 16. R.Arumugam 17. S.Radhika 18. R.Anbarasu 19. K.Venkatachalam 20. G.Murugaiya 21. Dr.N.Chidambaranathan 22. Dr.A.Ravindran 23. P.Arasu 24. D.Anand 25. R.Gurunathan 26. Dr.B.Lakshmanasamy 27. Parents Association of Students studying under Government Quota in Self Financing/Private Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu, Chennai (Reg.56/2007) Rep.by its President No.57, Chinna Babu Street Nammalwarpet, Chennai 600 012 (R3 to R27 impleaded as per order dt.9.7.08 by CJ & FMIKJ in M.P.Nos.2 & 6/07 in W.P.No.23268/07) .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to Proceedings No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-2 dated 19.03.2007 and quash the said proceedings and consequently direct the second respondent to approve the annual fee of Rs.4,05,000/- proposed by the petitioner. For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Balaraman For Respondents :: Mr.G.Sankaran Special Govt. Pleader (Edn.) for R1 & R2 Mr.N.R.Chandran Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Chandrakanthan for R3 to R26 Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s Row & Reddy for R27 W.P.No.25284 of 2007: G.Selva, Secretary The Students Federation of India Tamil Nadu State Committee 57/21, Arunodhaya Complex EVR Periyar High Road Periamet, Chennai 600 003 .. Petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ -vs- 1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 2. Director of Medical Education EVR Periyar High Road, Kilpauk Chennai 600 010 3. The Permanent Committee for Fixation of Fees in Self Financing Professional Colleges Rep.by its Chairman No.7-A, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Chennai 600 028 4. Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute rep.by its Dean, Padur Village Old Mahabalipuram Road, Kanchipuram 603 103 5. PSG Institute of Medical Science & Research rep.by its Principal, Post Box No.1674 Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004 6. Sri Mookambigai Institute of Medical Sciences rep.by its Principal, Kulasekharam Kanyakumari 629 161 .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the 3rd respondent in fixing the tuition fees in respect of the respondent colleges 4 to 6 as Rs.3.00 lakhs, 2.25 lakhs and 2.30 lakhs respectively, vide its Proceeding No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-3 dt. 4.06.2007, Proceeding No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-2 dt. 19.03.2007, Proceeding No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-4 dt. 18.06.2007, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent Committee to consider and fix the appropriate fees for imparting Medical Education in the respondent Colleges, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner :: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s Row & Reddy For Respondents :: Mr.G.Sankaran Special Govt. Pleader (Edn.)for R1 to R3 Mr.Nageswara Rao, Senior Counsel for Mr.Sathish Parasaran for R4 Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Balaraman for R5 Ms.B.Saraswathi for R6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.25351 of 2007: 1. Parents Association of Students Studying Under Government Quota in Self Financing Private Medical Colleges of Tamil Nadu, Chennai (Reg.56/2007) Rep.by its Secretary No.57, Chinna Babu Street Nammalwarpet, Chennai 600 012 2. S.G.Pandian .. Petitioners -vs- 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 2. Director of Medical Education EVR Periyar High Road, Kilpauk Chennai 600 010 3. The Permanent Committee for Fixation of Fees in Self Financing Professional Colleges rep.by its Chairman No.7-A, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Chennai 600 028 4. Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute rep.by its Dean, Padur Village Old Mahabalipuram Road Kanchipuram 603 103 .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Proceeding No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-3 dated 4.6.2007 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent Committee to consider and fix the fees for imparting Medical Education in the 4th respondent College within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioners :: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s Row & Reddy For Respondents :: Mr.G.Sankaran Special Govt. Pleader (Edn.) for R1 to R3 Mr.Nageswara Rao Senior Counsel for Mr.Sathish Parasaran for R4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.25704 of 2007: Padanilam Welfare Trust Rep.by its Chairman C.K.Velayuthan Nair Kulasekharam Kanyakumari District 629 161 .. Petitioner -vs- 1. State Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government Health & Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009 2. The Permanent Committee for the Fixation of Fees in Self Financing Professional Colleges Rep.by its Chairman 7-A, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028 3. The Director of Medical Education Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records of the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-4 dated 18.06.2007 pertaining to the petitioner's Institute, "Sri Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences" at Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari District and quash the said proceedings and consequently direct the second respondent to approve the Annual Tuition Fee of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs only) per student proposed by the petitioner. For Petitioner :: Ms.B.Saraswathi For Respondents :: Mr.G.Sankaran Special Govt. Pleader (Edn.) W.P.No.26250 of 2007: 1. Parents Association of Students Studying Under Government Quota in Self Financing Private Medical Colleges of Tamil Nadu, Chennai (Reg.56/2007) Rep.by its Secretary No.57, Chinna Babu Street Nammalwarpet, Chennai 600 012 2. S.G.Pandian .. Petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ -vs- 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 2. Director of Medical Education EVR Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 3. The Permanent Committee for Fixation of Fees in Self Financing Professional Colleges rep.by its Chairman No.7-A, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Chennai 600 028 4. PSG Institute of Medical Sciences & Research rep.by its Principal, Post Box No.1674 Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004 .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Proceeding No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-2 dated 19.3.2007 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent Committee to consider and fix the fees for imparting Medical Education in the 4th respondent College, by following the criteria laid down by the Apex Court after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioners :: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s Row & Reddy For Respondents :: Mr.G.Sankaran Special Govt. Pleader (Edn.) for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Balaraman for R4 C O M M O N O R D E R F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. In W.P.No.20666 of 2007, the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings of the second respondent Committee passed in No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-3 dated 4.6.2007. While seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the second respondent to approve the tuition fee for the M.B.B.S. Degree Course in respect of the petitioner institution for the academic year 2007- 2008 onwards as claimed by the petitioner at Rs.4,05,000/- per student per annum. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. In W.P.No.23268 of 2007, the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings of the second respondent Committee in Proceedings No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-2 dated 19.3.2007, to quash the said proceedings and consequently direct the second respondent to approve the annual fee of Rs.4,05,000/- as proposed by the petitioner. 3. In W.P.No.25704 of 2007, the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings of the second respondent Committee in Proceedings No.PC/Medical Fee/2007-4 dated 18.6.2007 pertaining to its institution "Sri Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences" at Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari District, quash the said proceedings and consequently direct the second respondent to approve the annual tuition fee of Rs.4,00,000/- per student as proposed by the petitioner. 4. W.P.No.25284 of 2007 has been filed by the Secretary of the Students Federation of India, Tamil Nadu State Committee, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the third respondent in that writ petition, namely, the Permanent Committee for Fixation of Fees in Self Financing Professional Colleges, in having fixed the tuition fees in respect of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.20666, 23268 & 25704 of 2007 in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.2,30,000/- in its proceedings dated 4.6.2007, 19.3.2007 & 18.6.2007 respectively as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and direct the said Committee to consider and fix the appropriate fees in respect of those institutions by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a reasonable time frame. 5. In W.P.No.25351 of 2007, the Parents Association of Students studying under Government Quota in Self Financing Private Medical Colleges of Tamil Nadu seek for a similar direction as claimed in W.P.No.25284 of 2007 in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.20666 of 2007. The very same petitioners have preferred W.P.No.26250 of 2007 for an identical relief in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.23268 of 2007. 6. A perusal of the reliefs claimed in the above referred to writ petitions discloses that on the one hand, the respective institutions are aggrieved as against the tuition fee fixed by the Permanent Committee for the Fixation of Fees in Self Financing Professional Colleges by contending that the tuition fee fixed therein is on the lower side, the Students Federation of India, Tamil Nadu State Committee and the Parents Association of Students studying under Government Quota in Self Financing Private Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu are aggrieved against the very same proceedings on the ground that the tuition fee fixed therein is on the higher side. For the sake of convenience, the parties, namely, the petitioner in W.P.No.20666 of 2007 will be hereinafter referred to as the "Chettinad Hospitals and Research Institute", the petitioner in W.P.No.23268 of 2007 as the "P.S.G.Institute of Medical Sciences and Research", the petitioner in W.P.No.25704 of 2007 as the "Sri Mookambika Institute of Medical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sciences", the petitioner in W.P.No.25284 of 2007 as the "Students Federation of India" and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.25351 & 26250 of 2007 as the "Parents Association". Though the Permanent Committee for the Fixation of Fees in Self Financing Professional Colleges has been arrayed in different status in the above writ petitions, it will be hereinafter referred to as the "Permanent Committee" and the other statutory respondents, namely, the State Government and the Director of Medical Education, as the "State Government" and the "Director of Medical Education". 7. Before us, on behalf of Chettinad Hospitals and Research Institute, arguments were addressed by Mr.Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel along with Mr.Sathish Parasaran. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel addressed arguments on behalf of P.S.G.Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and Ms.B.Saraswathi, learned counsel addressed arguments on behalf of Sri Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences. On behalf of the Students Federation of India and Parents Association, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel addressed arguments and Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel addressed arguments on behalf of the parents of the students undergoing the course in P.S.G.Institute of Medical Sciences and Research. We also heard the arguments of Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) on behalf of the State. 8. Mr.Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel, after making a detailed reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 8 SCC 481 (hereinafter referred to as the "T.M.A.Pai Foundation"), Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, (2003) 6 SCC 687 (hereinafter referred to as the "Islamic Academy of Education-I"), Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, (2004) 8 SCC 217 (hereinafter referred to as the "Islamic Academy of Education-II") and P.A.Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.A.Inamdar"), contended that in the impugned order passed in respect of Chettinad Hospitals and Research Institute, the Permanent Committee completely omitted to apply the various criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for fee fixation, that there was total non-application of mind while fixing the annual tuition fee by the Permanent Committee, that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the fee as claimed by the Chettinad Hospitals and Research Institute should be directed to be fixed. According to the learned senior counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of serious illegality and irrationality in the decision making process of the Permanent Committee. The learned senior counsel, contended that the order is illegal as the same is not in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and irrational because there were no reasons recorded for scaling down the request of the institution in the matter of fixation of fee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for P.S.G.Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, while reiterating the contentions of Mr.Nageswara Rao, also submitted that the Permanent Committee appointed a sub-committee to examine the correctness of the claim made by the institution and that the said sub-committee failed to hold proper deliberations with the management, that there was also total failure in considering the relevant materials in the matter of fixation of fee and therefore the consequential order passed by the Permanent Committee, as impugned in the writ petition, is liable to be set aside. The main grievance canvassed on behalf of the P.S.G.Institute of Medical Sciences and Research was that there was violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, without furnishing the report of the sub-committee and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the Permanent Committee proceeded to fix the fee and in that process, grave injustice has been caused to the said institution. The learned senior counsel contended that very many detailed particulars as regards the investments made by the institution, as placed before the Permanent Committee as well as the sub-committee, were not considered at all while fixing the annual tuition fee payable by a student and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. Ms.B.Saraswathi, learned counsel appearing for Sri Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences in her submissions reiterated the contentions of M/s.Nageswara Rao and R.Krishnamoorthy and submitted that the fee fixed in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- was totally irrational compared to the infrastructure facilities provided by the said institution and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the students undergoing the course in P.S.G.Institute of Medical Sciences and Research contended that they are prepared to pay the fee fixed by the Permanent Committee in its order dated 19.3.2007 and that the said order does not call for interference. 12. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Students Federation of India and the Parents Association in his arguments submitted that in the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the direction for formation of a Permanent Committee was made only as an alternate to the constitution of a statutory committee, that in the State of Tamil Nadu, since in the year 1992 itself, the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 (Act 57 of 1992) hereinafter called the 1992 Act, had come into effect and the said Act specifically provides for constitution of a Committee, the State Government should be directed to constitute a committee under the said Act for the purpose of fixation of annual tuition fee payable by the students. According to the learned counsel, when avoidance of profiteering and collection of capitation fee to be curbed have been repeatedly stressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Foundation, Islamic Academy of Education-I and P.A.Inamdar the statutorily constituted committee alone will be able to achieve the above objective. The learned counsel, therefore, laid stress on the point that the exercise of fixation of fee should be directed to be carried out by a statutory committee constituted by the State Government. 13. The learned Special Government Pleader (Education) in his submissions brought to our notice that the State Government has issued an amendment to Section 4 of 1992 Act in G.O.Ms.No.226 Higher Education (J2) Department dated 11.7.2007 in and by which, the Permanent Committee already constituted as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been treated as the committee to function as provided under Section 4 of the 1992 Act. The learned Special Government Pleader therefore contended that the Permanent Committee has now acquired a statutory status under the provisions of the 1992 Act and the committee's decisions are binding on the parties. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the primary submissions of all the counsel were based on the various principles set out in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation, Islamic Academy of Education-I as well as in P.A.Inamdar. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to highlight the principles set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the first instance before attempting to examine the correctness of the orders impugned in the writ petitions as well as the grievances of the Students Federation of India and the Parents Association. 15. Though the Constitution Bench decision in Unnikrishnan J.P. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1993) 1 SCC 645, popularly known as Unnikrishnan judgment, is a preface to the issue, namely, the fixation of fee for professional colleges, we are of the view that what was stated earlier by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision needs to be stated here. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ultimate scheme set out in Unnikrishnan judgment in paragraph-210-(6)(a) to (d), issued directions to the various statutory authorities to monitor the fixation of fee. The Supreme Court also directed the Government to constitute a committee to fix the ceiling on the fees chargeable by professional colleges or the class of professional colleges, as the case may be. In the larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under in paragraph-45: "45. In view of the discussion hereinabove, we hold that the decision in Unnikrishnan 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 directions given to UGC, AICTE, the Medical Council of India, the Central and State Governments etc., are overruled." 16. Thus, what was said in the Unnikrishnan judgment stood overruled by the decision of the larger Bench in T.M.A.Pai Foundation case. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to state that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right to establish and administer private unaided non-minority educational institutions broadly comprises the rights to admit students, to set up a reasonable fee structure, to constitute a governing body, to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching) and to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees. In Paragraph-53, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as under: "53........Furthermore, in setting up a reasonable fee structure, the element of profiteering is not as yet accepted in Indian conditions. The fee structure must take into consideration the need to generate funds to be utilized for the betterment and growth of the educational institution, the betterment of education in that institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students......" 17. Again in paragraph-56, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "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. 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." 18. In paragraph-57, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised the point that the occupation of education is regarded as charitable and the Government, while can provide regulations that will ensure excellence in education, should forbid the charging of capitation fee and profiteering by the institution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid stress to the objective namely, the occupation of education being charitable, the fixation of fee should not run counter to the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ objective and thereby enable any institution to make a profit while establishing an educational institution. In other words though there can be a reasonable revenue surplus, such attempt should be only for the purpose of development of education and expansion of the institution. Again in paragraph-69, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the objective, namely, that a rational fee structure should be adopted by the management and appropriate machinery can be devised by the State or University to ensure that no capitation fee is charged and that there is no profiteering, a reasonable surplus is permissible. Ultimately, while answering the questions framed, the larger Bench held as under for question