verify the complaint. In the facts of the case, we decline to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that only the students or the parents could have made the complaint to the Samiti and hence the complaint made by any other person could not have been looked into by the Samiti, is ill-founded. Clause 3.1 of the norms only states that the revision for the fees structure can be filed before the Samiti by the students, parents or the colleges as they are directly interested in the revision of the fees by the samiti. The complaint in the instant case is not in regard to the revision of fees structure. In the instant case, the complaint is made in regard to the submission of the bogus documents by the petitioners while seeking the revision of the fees. So also the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the fee was already fixed and hence, the Samiti could not have issued the impugned communication asking the petitioners to produce the record, is equally ill-founded and is liable to be rejected. The Samiti merely wanted to verify the complaint made against the petitioners in respect of the submission of false and bogus documents and no case is made out for interference at this stage.
