( 1 ) THE afore-mentioned writ petitions have been filed, inter alia, questioning the right of various aided and unaided schools to fix tuition and other fees from students. The case of the petitioner is that lakhs of students studying in unaided recognized private schools in Delhi would be affected by the decision of this Hon ble court on the vital questions of law which have been raised by the petitioner association in these Public interest Litigations. The petitioners state that the respondent schools are not entitled to hike fee w. e. f. 1. 4. 1999 without following the procedure as laid down by this Hon ble court in judgment dated 30/10/1998. It is also submitted that the respondent schools are required to consult the representatives of the parents before taking any decision about the fee hike but the same has not been done. It is alleged that in absence of any valid decision regarding fee hike, the respondent schools are entitled to charge fee from the students w. e. f. 1. 4. 1999 at the rates which were prevalent on 31/03/1997. It is submitted that the respondent schools had with them large sums of surpluses even as on 31st March 997 and that they were not justified in increasing any fee w. e. f. 1/04/1997 onwards. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to perform their duties as they have not taken any action on the complaint of the petitioner against arbitrary fee hike by the respondent schools. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not so far constituted a statutory committee as contemplated by the judgment dated 30/10/1998 of this court for the purposes of adjudication of disputes pertaining to fee hike in future w. e. f. 1/04/1999. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 we required to examine the account and other records of all the unaided recognized private schools in Delhi under the provisions of Section 18 (5) of Delhi School Education act, 1973 read with Rules 170 and 180 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 but the same has not been done. The petitioners further allege that the Director of Education, in terms of provisions of Section 24 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 was required to make inspection of the respondent schools each year but the same has never been done which tantamounts to failure on the respondent to perform statutory duties as imposed upon them under the provisions of law.

( 2 ) THE impugned order is dated 15/12/1999, the correctness of which has been questioned in this petition. The relevant portion thereof whereby and whereunder fee structure was evolved, reads thus

"4. The tuition fee shall be reviewed in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble High Court dated 30. 10. 1998 and shall not be raised beyond the amount, that prevailed on 31/03/1999 for the remaining part of the current academic session and shall not be increased unless it is found by the Managing Committee of the school that the accumulated funds are not sufficient to bear the liabilities, if any, in discharge of its responsibilities, provided for under the Act and the Rules. The tuition fee shall be so determined as to cover the standard cost of Establishment including provisions for D. A. , Bonus, etc. and all terminal benefits as also the expenditure of revenue nature concerning the curricular activities. All fees charged in excess of the amount so determined or determinable shall be refunded to the students/parents within fifteen days of the issue of this order. 5. No annual charges shall be levied unless they are determined by the Managing Committee to be sufficient to cover all revenue expenditure, not included in the tuition fee and overheads and expenses on play grounds, sports equipment, cultural and other co-curricular activities as distinct from the curricular activities of the School 7. Development fee, not exceeding ten percent of the total annual tuition fee may be