S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following two reliefs:-

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court under its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950 by issuing appropriate Writ, order, Direction be pleased to declare that, the provisions of section 6(5), (7) of the Said Act, 2011 are arbitrary, ultra-vires violating of Article 14 and 21 and 21(A) of the Constitution of India, 1950, so also is violating the spirit and object of the very Said Act and therefore, to that extent appropriate effect may be given in said act of deletion, amendment etc.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court under its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India 1950 by issuing appropriate Writ, order, Direction be pleased to declare that, the provisions of section 6(5), (7) of the Said Act, 2011 to be read as, in the Sub-Section 5 of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act word..........then Management may prefer an appeal........is required to be substituted as.....then aggrieved parties even individual parent may prefer an appeal.........So also in Section 6(7).

The management or the executive committee, even individual parent aggrieved by the decision.........”

2. Since we have extensively heard both sides and perused the petition and all the affidavits placed on record so also the legal provisions, we intend to dispose of this petition by this final judgment.

3. Hence, Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

4. The few facts necessary to appreciate the arguments of the petitioners' counsel are that the first petitioner before us is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 by the parents of the students of respondent no. 3-Khed Taluka Education Society's English Medium School at Rajgurunagar, Taluka-Khed, District-Pune. The fourth respondent to this petition is the Principal of the said school, whereas, the fifth respondent is the Executive Committee set up under the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Act No. VII of 2014). The first respondent to the writ petition is the State, whereas, the second respondent is the Deputy Director of Education.

5. The first respondent has allowed the school to be set up by granting necessary permissions and approvals through the second respondent and to be functional at Rajgurunagar. It is stated that it is catering to the students in the rural areas. Respondent no. 3 is the Management who has set up this school, but the complaint is, for the academic year 2016-17, this third respondent-Management has increased the fees more than 15% and to the extent of 25% without following the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. VII of 2014. The further complaint is that the petitioners approached the Education Officer and other statutory functionaries, complaining that these fees are exorbitant and that there are several irregularities and not only the statutory functionaries, but even the Parent-Teachers Association has neglected to take action against such an arbitrary increase. The petitioners placed reliance upon an order passed on 12th May, 2016 by the Education Officer (Primary) of Pune Zilla Parishad. He has directed the Principal-respondent no. 4 not to increase the fees. However, the Education Officer recalled such an order by his subsequent order dated 22nd September, 2016, copy of which is at Exhibit-G to the petition. Therefore, the petitioners approached the appellate authority within the meaning of sub-section (5) of section 6 of the Maharashtra Act VII of 2014. The appeal was heard from time to time. By the impugned order, the said appeal has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The conclusion is that the appeal/Com