ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos.7706/2020 (O&M) and 7761/2020(O&M) respectively.

3. The appellants had assailed the Notification dated 13.04.2018 issued by the appropriate authority in exercise of powers under Section 87 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, (for short, 'the 1966 Act'), by way of writ petition(s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition(s) opining that the appropriate authority was competent to issue such Government Order/Notification.

5. Before this Court, the limited challenge is to Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso, which have been inserted in terms of the impugned Order/Notification by way of paragraph 6 thereof. Paragraph 6 of the impugned Order/Notification reads thus:

"6. In section 5, after this proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

"Provided further that every Unaided Educational Institution shall-

(a) upload income, expenditure account and balance sheet on its website;

(b) not charge any kind of cost from the parents;

(c) disclose complete free structure at the beginning of the academic year in the Booklet issued, alongwith the admission form, by the schools and also be posted in its website;

(d) not raise the fee any time during the academic session." (emphasis supplied)

6. In addition, the appellants have questioned the validity of paragraph 8 of the impugned Order/Notification, which reads thus:

"8. In section 14:-

(a) in sub-section(1) for the words, "thirty thousand rupees", "rupees fifty thousand" and "rupees one lac", the words "sixty thousand rupees", "one lakh rupees" and "two lakh rupees" shall respectively be substituted;

(b) in sub-section(2) for the words, "sixty thousand rupees", "rupees one lac", the words "one lakh twenty thousand rupees", "two lakh rupees" and "four lakh rupees" shall respectively be substituted."

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The entire issue needs to be answered, keeping in mind the exposition of this Court in 'Lachmi Narain vs. Union of India' reported in 1976 (2) SCC 953.

9. The three-Judge Bench of this Court has had an occasion to deal with the provision similar to Section 87 of the 1966 Act. The expression 'restrictions or modifications' occurring in Section 87[1] has been interpreted by this Court in following words:

"61........ Such a wide construction must be eschewed lest the very validity of the section becomes vulnerable on account of the vice of excessive delegation. Moreover, such a construction would be repugnant to the context and the content of the section, read as a whole, and the statutory limits and conditions attaching to the exercise of the power. We must, therefore, confine the scope of the words "restrictions and modifications" to alterations of such a character which keep the inbuilt policy, essence and substance of the enactment sought to be extended, intact, and introduce only such peripheral or insubstantial changes which are appropriate and necessary to adapt and adjust it to the local conditions of the Union Territory." (emphasis supplied)

[1] Section 87 in the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966:

87. Power to extend enactments to Chandigarh. The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend with such restrictions or modifications as it thinks fit, to the Union territory of Chandigarh any enactment which is in force in a State at the date of the notification.

10. The challenge in the present appeals is required to be decided on the basis of the principles stated in this judgment.

11. The question is: whether clause (a) of the third proviso inserted in terms of paragraph 6 of the impugned Government Order/Notification dated 13.04.2018 can be regarded as peripheral or insubstantial change to the provisions of the Punjab (Regulations of Fees of Unaided Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 (for short, 'the 2016