Radhakrishnan, J.

Ext.P5 order passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges dated 26-4-2007 is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the Regulatory Committee has exceeded the powers conferred on it under Section 6 of Act 19/06 in interfering with the power of the management in fixing the fee structure.

2. Petitioner has sought for a declaration that petitioner is entitled to collect fees from the students based on the fee structure proposed by them before the committee. Government of Kerala has constituted the Fee Regulatory Committee under section 6 of Act 19 of 2006. Powers conferred on the Regulatory Committee under the Act was the subject matter of the decision of this Court in Lisie Medical & Education Institutions v. State of Kerala, 2007(1) KLT 409. This court placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation case (2002) 8 SCC 481, Islamic Academy's case (2003) 6 SCC 697, and Inamdar's case (2005) 6 SCC 527 held as follows:

"It is further clear that the fee has to be decided by the institutions themselves and such right of the institutions cannot be arrogated by the State. While, however, fixing the fee structure, the institutions cannot indulge into profiteering nor can charge capitation fee, even though the element of surplus income to cater to the future needs of the institutions can be definitely taken into account while fixing the fee. The Committees that may be constituted or the law that may be even made could only regulate the profiteering and charging of capitation fee. The Committees would themselves have every right to modify the fee structure fixed by the institutions and debar institutions by an order and if legislation is made to that effect by law, to reduce the fee in the event of its coming to a finding that the fee structure had a component of profiteering and/or capitation fee, but nothing beyond that. The fixation of fee structure is the right of an institution particularly when unaided. The right of the Committees that may be constituted or the Government to legislate, in our considered view, cannot go beyond examining the fee structure to find out therein the element of profiteering or charge of capitation fee, be it by monitoring committees or by legislation." (Emphasis added)

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Committee has failed to bear in mind the above findings rendered by this court while issuing Ext.P5 order, but indulged in an exercise to fix fee by itself without examining the question whether in fact there was any element of profiteering and/or capitation fee in the fixation of fee structure by the petitioner management.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that the Committee is not bound to accept the fee structure submitted by the management and in appropriate cases it can modify the fee structure fixed by the institutions depending upon the facts of each case. Learned counsel submitted that the Committee has examined all the materials furnished by the management and after taking into consideration of all aspects of the matter an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was fixed per student per annum for the petitioner's institution for the academic years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

4. Ext.P1 is a communication dated 18-1-2007 sent by the Regulatory Committee to the petitioner stating that the fee structure for each institution will have to be fixed by the management taking into account the factors such as the infrastructure facilities available, the investment made, salaries paid to the teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or betterment of the institution etc. Management was directed to forward the fee structure or their proposal for the academic years 2007-08 to 2009-2010 to the Committee along with the relevant documents and books of accounts, the income and expenditure statement, audited accounts and balance sheet for the last three