85. Adverting, now, to the impugned Order, dated 18th July, 2017 itself, it is possible to compartmentalise the Order into three distinct sections. The impugned Order commences by noting the fact of issuance of the earlier Order, dated 26th December, 2016, the representation, by the petitioner-School, thereagainst, and grant of personal hearing to the petitioner-School. It proceeds, thereafter, to “analyse” the submissions made by the petitioner. This analysis is divided into three sections, the first of which is titled “Financial discrepancies”, the second “other discrepancies”, and the third, though untitled, dealing with the alleged “surplus fund” available with the petitioner-School. The first section sets out three “financial discrepancies”, which merely requires the petitioner to comply with the recommendations, made in that regard, and record its assurance, that it would do so. The second section, dealing with “other discrepancies”, too, records the submission, of the petitioner, that the discrepancies would be rectified, and contemplates compliance therewith, at the time of next fee increase proposal. The controversy, before this Court, is concerned, essentially, with the third section of the impugned Order, which alleges that the petitioner had, with it, “a surplus fund of Rs. 1,18,42,701/-”, and provides a tabular statement in that regard. Having observed thus, the impugned Order proceeds to record a finding that “the school (was) having sufficient funds even after meeting all the budgeted expenditure for the financial year 2016-17”. Thereafter, the impugned Order proceeds to issue certain directions, to the petitioner, to maintain separate funds for earmarked levies, avoid diversion thereof, and to maintain a separate development fund, before concluding thus:
