Shikha Sharma Bagga, Mr. Ankit Mann, Ms. Jyoti Shokeen and Ms. Amisha Dhariwan v. BLUEBELLS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL KAILASH AND ANR

Judgment

1. Since these three letters patent appeals assail the validity of one and the same judgment and order dated 07.02.2024 and common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, they have been heard together and are being decided by the common judgment which follows:- LPA 213/2024, LPA 316/2024 & LPA 669/2024 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.10.2025 17:27:06

2. LPA 316/2024 and LPA 669/2024 have been instituted by the Directorate of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „DoE‟), whereas; LPA 213/2024 has been instituted by students through their parents, who were interveners in the

proceedings of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge.

3. W.P.(C) 8794/2018 was filed by Bluebells School International, Kailash, (a school which is privately run and managed and does not receive any aid or grant from the Government and is also not running on a land granted to it by the Government or any of its agencies on allotment/lease) against an order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the DoE, GNCTD whereby, the school was directed not to increase any fees pursuant to the fee hike proposed by the school for the Academic Session 2017-2018 on any count recommendations of 7th Central Pay including Commission (7th CPC). The said order dated 01.08.2018 also directed the implementation of school that if the fees was already increased, the same would be refunded to the parents or adjusted in the fees of subsequent months. The DoE, while passing the order dated 01.08.2018, also provided that the said order shall be communicated through website and notice board of the school and also by a circular informing all concerned about rejection of fee increase as proposed. The aforesaid order dated 01.08.2018 also contained a direction that the fees shall be utilized as per the provisions of Rule 177 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the „DSER, 1973‟) and in terms of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583. LPA 213/2024, LPA 316/2024 & LPA 669/2024 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.10.2025 17:27:06

4. The school was further directed that it shall utilize the fees collected from the students in accordance with the provisions of Rule 177 of DSER, 1973 and orders and directions which may be issued by DoE from time to time.

5. A similar challenge was made by Lilawati Vidya Mandir, Sr. Secondary School (this school is also privately run and managed and not aided by the Government, neither is it run on land granted or leased by the Government or any of its agencies), which instituted W.P.(C) 6419/2019. The challenge in this petition was to an order dated 20.04.2019, passed by the DoE, whereby certain directions were issued to this school as well. The directions issued vide order dated 20.04.2019, was to the effect that the school shall not charge any increased fees in pursuance to the full fees statement filed under Section 17(3) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the „DSEA, 1973‟) for the Academic Session 2017-2018 and if increased fees had already been charged, the same shall be refunded to the parents or adjusted in the fees for subsequent months. The school was also directed to communicate the said decision of the DoE to the parents of the students.

6. It was further directed that the school shall ensure that salaries and allowances shall come out from the fees, whereas capital expenditure will be a charge on the savings in accordance with the principles laid by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Modern School (supra). It was also directed that the school shall not include capital expenditure as a component of the fee structure to be submitted by the school under Section 17(3) of LPA 213/2024, LPA 316/2024 & LPA 669/2024 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.10.2025 17:27:06 DSEA, 1973 and that the school shall utilize the fees in accordance with the provisions of Rule 177 of DSER, 1973 and orders and directions which may be issued by the DoE from time to time. Another direction contained in the order dated 20.04.2019 was that the school shall remove all the financial and other irregularities as listed in the said order and submit a compliance report within 30 days to the DoE, non-compliance of which shall be dealt with in accordance with provisions of Section 24(4) of the DSEA, 1973.

7. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions filed by the schools has quashed the orders which were under challenge in the writ petitions to the extent, the said orders prescribed increase of fees by the schools. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal herein that the DoE shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law with respect to the allegations as are reflected in the orders which were impugned in the writ petitions, subject, of course to ensuring that no adverse decision against the schools would be taken without following the requirement of a statute/rules and regulations and applicable guidelines and adhering to the principles of natural justice and fair play. The learned Single Judge also provided that quashing of the orders which were under challenge before him shall not inhibit the DoE from taking any decision in respect of any perceived infraction by the schools of the provisions of DSEA, 1973 or DSER, 1973.

8. The appellants in LPA 213/2024, who are the students, were permitted to intervene in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge through their parents and were also heard by the learned Single Judge. Both the writ LPA 213/2024, LPA 316/2024 & LPA 669/2024 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.10.2025 17:27:06 petitions, namely, W.P.(C) 8794/2018 and W.P.(C) 6419/2019 have been decided by the common judgment and order dated 07.02.2024 by the learned Single Judge, which is under appeal herein.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us on these letters patent appeals.

10. Since the facts leading to filing of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge have elaborately been mentioned by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal, we do not find it necessary to advert to the facts again and proceed to decide the legal issue which has emerged in these appeals.

11. The issue which needs our consideration and determination, as can be culled out from the pleadings available on record of these letters patent appeals and the competing submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties are as under: - (i) What is the extent of power of the Government (DoE) to regulate the fees charged by an unaided privately managed school from its students under DSEA, 1973?; in other words, whether, in the facts of the present case, DoE can be said to be possessed with necessary power and jurisdiction to prohibit the privately run and unaided schools from increasing its fees in terms of the provisions contained in Section 17(3) and 18(4) of the DSEA, 1973 read with Rule 172 to 179 falling under Chapter XIV of DSER, 1973, and if the fees were already increased by such a school, whether the DoE is LPA 213/2024, LPA 316/2024 & LPA 669/2024 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.10.2025 17:27:06 empowered to direct the school to refund the fees charged in excess of what the DoE considers to be the maximum fees chargeable from the students.

12. It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in returning a categorical finding that under the provisions of Section 17 and 18 of DSEA, 1973 read with the rules framed there under the DoE is not empowered to regulate the fees to be charged by unaided schools for the reason that such a finding is contrary to what has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Modern School (supra). Further submission on behalf of the appellants is that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the orders under challenge before him were passed in violation of principles of natural justice is also erroneous for the reason that the said orders were passed after giving adequate opportunity to the school management and accordingly, in the facts of the case such finding returned by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable.

13. Mr. Sameer Vashisht, learned Standing Counsel representing GNCTD has drawn our attention to paragraph no.17 of the judgment in Modern School (supra), which, according to him, clearly laid down that the DoE has the authority to regulate fees under Section 17(3) of DSEA, 1973. He has further argued that the said conclusion was arrived at in Modern School (supra) by Hon‟ble Supreme Court on a detailed consideration of the legal principles as laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,