The autonomy of private unaided educational institutions in fixing fee structures and the limited governmental control, as well as the rights of minority educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution and the need for a rational fee structure.

The prayer in W.P.No.2908 of 1999 is for a writ of mandamus for bearing the second respondent from increasing the fees pursuant to their circular dated 112. 1998.

2. W.P.No.2909 has been preferred for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to notify Matriculation and Higher Secondary Schools as Educational Institutions as defined in Section 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992.

3. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petitions are as under:

.(a) The petitioner is stated to be the convenor of the ad hoc Committee of C.S.I. Bain School Parents Association. The second respondent institution was originally an elementary school and subsequently it was upgraded up to plus two with a strength of over 3500 students. The school follows the matriculation pattern up to tenth standard, and beyond that they are following Higher Secondary pattern. The institution is stated to be one of the reputed schools in Chennai and they have teaching and non-teaching staff of about 150. The institution is stated to be managed by the Bishop of Madras CSI Diocese, the third respondent in the writ petition.

.(b) The daughter of the petitioner was studying in-First Standard in the second respondent Institution in 1998-1999. Originally a calendar was issued by the second respondent which contains the fee structure for various classes for the academic year 1998-99. In the year 1997-98 the total fee payable for standards I to III was Rs.1,640/-for the first term, Rs.1,340/- each for second and third terms. During the academic year 1998-99 the fee payable for the first term was enhanced to Rs.1,990/- for standard-I and in the same way, the fees for II and III term were fixed at Rs.1,760/- and 1,560/-respectively.

.(c) While so, the second respondent School had issued a circular dated 112. 1998 stating that in view of the implementation of the pay revision announced by the State Government, the third term fees payable for various classes have been increased. In respect of standards I to III, the fees payable for the third term was enhanced from Rs.1,560/- to Rs.2,060/- and there has been similar enhancement of Rs.500/- for all the other classes.

.(d) The parents, who have been already burdened on account of high fees were taken aback by the steep increase in the fees and as such a meeting of the parents were convened and it was decided to submit an appeal to the school authorities to withdraw the fees hike. However the same was not agreeable to the second respondent as according to them, they have to pay the revised salary to the teaching faculty on account of the recommendation of the pay commission. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions to injunct the second respondent from taking further action on the basis of the impugned circular and for a further direction to the Government to notify Matriculation and Higher Secondary Schools as Educational Institutions as defined in Section 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act 1992.

4. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.2909 of 1999 wherein it was their contention that the institution is a minority institution and they are not getting any kind of aid from the Government and as such they are at liberty to fix the fees without any interference from the Government as well as from the parents. It was also indicated that even though the calendar does not provide for any escalation in the middle of the year, the management has got every right to increase the fees even in the middle of the academic year. The second respondent has also denied the various allegations of the petitioner with respect to the various fees collected by them, as according to them, they have collected the fees only for the purpose of the institution and there was no attempt to collect unreasonable fees so as to g