D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) IN all the aforesaid writ petitions, it is submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioner(s) that without. giving any notice, an order has been passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal dated 6th June, 2009, whereby, without receiving any complaint for these schools, stay has been given for not to increase the fees by more than 15% and a Committee has been constituted by the Tribunal for all the schools within the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the impugned order dated 6th June, 2009 deserved to be quashed and set aside. They have also relied upon a decision, rendered by this Court dated 28th August, 2007 in W.P. (C) No. 2876 of 2007 and other allied matters.
(2.) LEARNED counsels for the petitioner(s) submitted that, in fact, the Tribunal cannot treat a matter, pending before it, as a Public Interest Litigation and cannot pass a general lump -sum order applicable to one and all the schools, in absence of any complaint and without giving any notice to the petitioner(s), to the effect that the petitioners (schools herein) cannot enhance the fee structure. They have also relied upon Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005 (in short the Act, 2005), especially Section 9 thereof and several other sections of the said Act, 2005. They have also relied upon several decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that the Tribunal has no power, jurisdiction and authority to take decision relating to the fees, levied by the schools, as they are unaided privately managed schools, some of them are even minority schools.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 10, who has submitted that it is true that most of the petitioners -schools are not given notices. Petition No. 2 in W.P. (C) No. 5939 of 2008 is giving a notice. Likewise in W.P. (C) No. 5941, except petitioner No. 3. all the (sic) notices. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 10 that the Tribunal has got all power, jurisdiction and authority to fix or to limit the fees, being levied by the schools. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 10 that the Tribunal has all the power, jurisdiction and authority to constitute a Committee because the Tribunal is not a Cost Accountant or a Chartered Accountant and, therefore, the Tribunal has constituted a Committee, so that able assistant may be given to the Tribunal. Nonetheless, no final decision has been taken by the Tribunal and the impugned order is appellable one under Section 15 of the Act, 2005.;