The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday issued notice of motion on a bunch of petitions claiming that an ordinance promulgated by the Governor of Punjab would have the effect of providing for recovery—with retrospective effect for the last three years—of fee already deposited by students from different unaided private schools in the state.During the hearing, the Punjab government submitted that the implementation of the recovery with retrospective effect would not be carried out till the next date of hearing before this court.The Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Sanjiv Berry was hearing five connected petitions filed by Federation of Private Schools and Associations of Punjab and other associations of private unaided schools.Appearing before the Bench for the petitioners, senior counsel submitted that the ordinance had been issued by the Governor of Punjab vide notification dated July 13.They argued that the session of the Punjab Legislative Assembly began on August 3, and there was no justification for issuing the ordinance just two weeks before the commencement of the session.The senior counsel further submitted that an ordinance was not immune from judicial review, but the intervention of a constitutional court could be sought only in very rare circumstances.Referring to the ordinance, the senior counsel submitted: “By way of ordinance being brought out, the effect of the same, by way of an express provision under Section 5-B of Punjab Regulation of Fee of Un-aided Educational Institutions Act, 2016, was for recovery of fee from the different un-aided private schools of the state of Punjab, already deposited by the students, with retrospective effect for the last three years, which is not permissible under the law.”The petitioners also challenged the legislative competence of the ordinance. They further contended that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, arbitrary in nature and that its retrospective effect rendered it liable to challenge.Senior advocate and Additional Advocate-General Chanchal K. Singla, appearing for the State, submitted: “Till the next date of hearing before this Court, the implementation of the recovery with retrospective effect will not be made. He also sought time to file a reply.Taking a note of the contentions, the Division Bench deferred the proceedings to September 22.