The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Doctrine of Necessity to justify the Chairperson's unilateral decision in an urgent situation, and the distinction between technical infringement of the principle of natural justice and cases where there was no hearing at all.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Whether the impugned order directing refund of excess fee collected by the Writ Petitioner school is without any basis and whether there was violation of principles of natural justice are the points falling for our consideration in this Writ Petition.

2. Writ Petitioner school is an unaided private school having Matriculation and Higher Secondary and about 2300 students are studying from Pre KG to XII standard. On 07.5.2010, Justice K.Govindarajan Committee determined the fee under Section 6(1) of Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 [Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009]. Not satisfied by the fee structure, Writ Petitioner school filed objections under Section 6(3) of the Act. As per the order of First Bench in P.B. Prince Gajendra Babu v. Federation of Association of Private Schools in Tamil Nadu (2010 (5) CTC 721), all the matters were remitted back to the Committee directing the Committee to consider the objections of 6400 Institutions by affording them opportunity of personal hearing to enable them to submit further materials for consideration of the Committee and thereafter pass individual orders by considering all such materials. On 03.6.2011, Justice K.Raviraja Pandian Committee re-fixed the fee which excluded the fee for imparting education through technology like smart classes etc. and books, note books, uniforms and transportation facilities. Challenging the said order dated 03.6.2011, Writ Petitioner school filed W.P.No.19684 of 2011. By the common judgment dated 03.5.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Committee and remitted all the matters back to the Committee to re-determine the fee structure in accordance with the directions given in the judgment.

3. On 03.8.2011, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Thiruvallur directed the Principal of the Writ Petitioner school to attend an enquiry in the office of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools on 10.8.2011 on the complaint that the Writ Petitioner school has collected excess fee over and above the fee fixed by the Committee. On 10.8.2011, Writ Petitioner school attended the enquiry. Writ Petitioner school submitted a detailed explanation (11.08.2011) denying collection of excess fee. Writ Petitioner school also furnished particulars regarding collection of fees, fee for smart class etc.

4. Again on 19.01.2012, the Joint Inspector of Matriculation Schools visited the Writ Petitioner school and verified the fee collection records and also enquired the students. Complaints were received from the parents with respect to collection of excess fee, other than the tuition fee such as smart class fee etc. are collected by the Writ Petitioner school. On 07.2.2012, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Thiruvallur held enquiry on the complaint of collection of excess fee. At the time of enquiry, formates were issued to the Writ Petitioner school to assess the exact quantum of fees collected. On the same day, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools submitted a report to the Committee with a finding that Writ Petitioner school collected excess fees.

5. Based on the enquiry conducted by the 4th Respondent, enquiry report was submitted to the Committee in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7(1) of the Act.

On notice, Writ Petitioner school appeared before the Committee on 20.2.2012 and submitted an explanation. Based on the enquiry and also the report of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, the Committee passed an order on 27.3.2012 holding that Writ Petitioner school had collected excess fees and the excess fee so collected was communicated in the impugned order. The order of Committee dated 27.3.2012 reads as follows:-

"However it was pointed out that in pursuance of a letter dated Nil of Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Thiruvalur who enquired on 07.02.2012 a report was sent on 23.2.2012 by the DMS to this Committee, as per which it is under stood that there was exce