High Court
Legal Reasoning
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.671 OF 2024Aggrieved Parents Group of studentsof the Fransalian School of Excellence,Through Anil s/o Janrao ShelokarAge: 48 years, Occu.: BusinessR/o 28, Moreshwar Housing Society, Tq. And Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar...PetitionerVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee,Through its Secretary, Deputy Director of Education, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.3.The Deputy Director of Education,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.4. The Education Officer (Secondary),Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.5. The Education Officer (Primary),Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.6. Fransalian School of Excellence,Through its Administrator, Fransalian Technical Institute Campus, Seven Hills, Garkheda Road, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar...RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO.14652 OF 2023Fransalian School of Excellence, Through its Administrator, Fr. Solomon Sahayraj, Age 47 years, Occ: Priest & Service R/o Fransalian Technical Institute Campus,
Legal Reasoning
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(2)Seven Hills, Gharkheda Road, Aurangabad. ..PetitionerVersus1. The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2. The Divisional FeeRegulatory Committee, Anglo Language Department, Near School Tribunal, Aurangabad.3. The Deputy Director of Education,Aurangabad DivisionAurangabad.4. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad (Secondary), Aurangabad.5. Aggrieved Parents of Fransalian Schoolof Excellence through its representativeMr. Anil ShelokarAge: Major; Occ: BusinessR/o: Plot No. 28, Moreshwar Housing Society, Behind Sarkate's Swarbihar,Gharkheda, Aurangabad... Respondents...Advocate for Petitioner in WP/671/2024 & Respondent No.5 inWP/14652/2023 : Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. AjinkyaReddy a/w Mr. Atharva D. KhedkarAGP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.S. PatilAdvocate for Respondent No.6 in WP/671/2024 & Petitioner inWP/14652/2023 : Mr. Cedric D. Fernandes... CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 11, 2025 wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(3)JUDGMENT :- (PER S.G. MEHARE, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finallywith the consent of the parties.2.The petitioners in both petitions have impugned a samejudgment and order of respondent no.2 dated 09.11.2023. Thepetitioners in Writ Petition No.14652 of 2023 is a school and thepetitioners in Writ Petition No.671 of 2024 are the group of aggrievedparents.3.The dispute in nutshell is about the hike in the feesimposed by the school. The fee hike was agitated by parents. Manyincidents happened including agitation before the school andeducation department. The complaint was also lodged. The DeputyDirector of Education had placed the complaint before respondentno.2 on 12.03.2023. The respective parties were called. Theaggrieved parents group had a grievance that the school/managementcannot hike the fees contrary to the Maharashtra EducationalInstitution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987 (‘The 1987 Act’for short) as well as The Maharashtra Educational Institutions(Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 (‘The 2011 Act’ for short). Under the1987 Act, the educational institution in the State cannot accept anykind of fees other than prescribed. However, the school/managementhas collected a huge amount under the garb of development feeranging from Rs.10,000/- to 20,000/- from parents at the time of wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(4)admission. This was every year practice. The school had also issuedthe receipts to most of the parents in the name of contributiontowards NFC Pre-primary School, Aurangabad Unit. Theschool/management has collected the fees from each studentstowards annual function fee without issuing receipt. It was madecompulsorily irrespective of participating their pupils in any activities.As per the 2011 Act, the school has to form the parent-teacherassociation within 30 days of every academic year for communicationamongst the parents and teachers and management. However, themanagement did not send the message about the formation of theExecutive Committee of the parent-teacher association during covid-19 pandemic. The school has made the group of parents of eachstandards. They were in existence till the fee hike. No notice aboutformation of the Executive Committee was sent. Since the executivecommittee of school was not formed by following due process, nonotice as such was ever published. Non-formation of the ExecutiveCommittee as per the rules is one grievance. The another grievanceof group of parents was that the school/management has hiked 40%to 50% fee structure for the academic year 2023-24. However, it wasnot published on the official website of the school. Opposing thisexorbitant hike, the parents peacefully protested before themanagement. The management realizing their mistake, published anotice on 04.02.2023 admitting their mistake and promised to rectify
Decision
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(5)the same within three days. The apology was also sought for. On06.02.2023, the school/management announced the same revisedexorbitant fee. To protest this, written application was filed. It wassubmitted to the Deputy Director of Education. However, hetransferred it to respondent no.2. The notice of hearing was issuedand it was scheduled on 24.03.2023. On 24.03.2024, the group ofaggrieved parents submitted a detail appeal under the signatures ofthe aggrieved parents in appropriate format along with the list ofparents who will represent the matter before the DFRC on behalf ofmore than 350 aggrieved parents.4.The school/management has raised the objection beforerespondent no.2, the objection of the maintainability of the complaintwas also raised on the ground that the name of the parents shown inthe list were not the parents of the students of the school. Thedocument was manipulated as some of the signatures were forged.The committee has decided the objection of maintainability on05.04.2023 and rejected the objection. The school/management hadimpugned the said order before the High Court vide Writ PetitionNo.4747 of 2023. The writ petition was disposed of with directions tothe Committee/respondent no.2 to scrutinize carefully theidentities/signatures of the aggrieved parents and verify the samedeciding the complaint addressed to the committee. The committeehad scrutinized and verified the identities and signatures of the wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(6)parents in meetings dated 17.07.2023, 25.07.2023 nad 01.08.2023and 07.08.2023. It was further the defence of theschool/management that the committee on the basis of the complaintof few parents initiated proceeding against the management is illegal.The complaint dated 06.02.2023 does not disclose the fees collectedfor previous academic year. The Deputy Director of Education,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar without making any inquiry forwardedthe complaint to respondent no.2 which in turn was registered asappeal, was illegal. Neither the Deputy Director of Education nor theCommittee verified the names appearing in the complaint dated06.02.2023 nor their signatures. The parents were added later onwithout permission of the Committee. Again the management hadchallenged the notice dated 13.03.2023 and 24.03.2023 in the HighCourt vide Writ Petition No.3774 of 2023. Again the High Courtdirected the Committee to consider all the grounds raised by theschool/management. Further the school/management had a casethat due to Covid-19 pandemic, the school could not introduce newfees structure as per the 2011 Act. The management has the libertyto determine its own fee structure taking into consideration the feesneeded to generate the school funds to run the school. Hearing therespective counsels and considering their case, the committee hadframed the following points for determination : wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(7)(i)Whether the objection of the respondent school inrespect of format of the appeal and strength of group ofaggrieved parents is acceptable ?(ii)Whether the aggrieved parents prove that withoutfollowing procedure contemplated by The MaharashtraEducational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 by therespondent school declared revised fees for the academic year2023-24 ?(iii)Are the aggrieved parents entitled for the refund of feesfor the academic year 2023-24 from the school.5.The Committee had accepted the case of the group ofaggrieved parents. However, once again relegated the authority tothe school/management to consider the provisions of the 2011 Act forre-fixing the education fees for the academic year 2023. Theaggrieved parents have a serious objection that the Committee shouldhave determined the fee structure and it must not have beenrelegated to the school/management again.6.After hearing the respective counsels, there appears nodispute about adjudication admitting the mistake by the school hikingthe fee structure. However, the dispute revolves around the followingpoints : wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(8)(i)Was the complaint addressed to the Deputy Director ofEducation transmitted to respondent no.2/Committee is anappeal memo as required under the law ?(ii)Was the appeal maintainable for want of requisite numberof parents ?(iii)Whether the group of parents were recognized as per the2011 Act and authorized to prefer the appeal ?(iv)Whether the format of appeal and strength of group ofaggrieved parents is mandatory ?(v)Can Committee determine the fee structure under the2011 Act instead of relegating it to the school/management.7.The learned senior counsel for the group of aggrievedparents has referred to various documents placed on record. He hasreferred to the receipts accepting the huge amount from the parentsand argued that it is a capitation fee which is against the provisions oflaw. He referred to the complaint addressed to the Education Officerabout the hike in the fee. He addressed a letter to the EducationOfficer to intimate all the concerned to remain present for hearing.He would submit that the reduction in the hike was asked from 2018to 2024. He also referred to the letter dated 13.03.2023 addressed tothe Headmaster of the school asking explanation, why the meeting ofthe parents was not held and further directed to hold the meeting ofthe parents. He has referred to Section 6, Section 10 (6)(7), Section wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(9)2(r) of the 2011 Act and argued that prima facie, there was no errorin presenting the complaint and converting it into appeal. He alsoargued that thereafter, the appeal was preferred in a prescribedformat. The parents-teacher association meeting was held on27.05.2022. However, in the said meeting, there was no decisionabout hike in fee except new format fee structure. He supported theimpugned judgment and order partly, however, the claim that theorder relegating the power to the school again to decide the feestructure is erroneous. He relied on the case of Euro SchoolEducation Trust and Others Vs. Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee,Pune and Others, MANU/MH/1622/2017.8.Per contra, learned counsel for the school has vehementlyargued that the Committee has apparently erred in law in notconsidering the issue of tenability. The petitioners before it were notthe persons authorized and the legally constituted parents association.He also reiterated that the signatures on the complaint were repeated.Hence, it is forged with a view to show the requisite number ofparents to constitute the association. He referred to Section 6 (5b) of2011 Act. To falsify the claim of the aggrieved parents group, he hasreferred to the affidavit of one of the parents contending that hersignatures were forged. The total strength as per the parents was956. Considering the strength, the complainants were less than 25%.Only 80 parents came forward to verify the signatures. Even though wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(10)the Committee did not pay heed to these facts. The parents do notdispute the hike. Their grievance is about the parents-teacherassociation. The sole witness of aggrieved parents admitted that hedid not file the documents showing the hike. In the absence of anydocument, the Committee has erroneously accepted that there was anunauthorized and illegal hike. It was disputed that the hike was not45% to 50%. However, the hike was as permissible in law. Theparents were agreeable to pay the fees subject to the condition thatthe school administration and the management should constituteparent-teacher association and its Executive Committee and to get thefees approved from them. He would submit that the impugned orderof the Committee is prima facie illegal and in violation of law. Tosupport his contention, he relied on the case of Union of India andOthers Vs. Mahendra Singh, of the Supreme Court in Civil AppealNo.4807 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.19886 of 2019). Heprayed to allow its writ petition and quash and set aside theimpugned order.9.The petitioners grievance is that on 04.02.2023, thecontesting respondent/management has surprisingly announced 45%to 50% hike in the fees of the last academic year. The increased feestructure was not published on the official website of the school.Therefore, they moved an application to the Deputy Director ofEducation on 06.02.2023. There was a serious fight between the wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(11)parents and the management resulting into the agitation. Thecontesting respondent has raised the objection that the complaint tothe Deputy Director of Education dated 06.02.2023 could not beconsidered as an appeal. The Deputy Director of Education withoutmaking inquiry forwarded the copy of the complaint to the Committeewhich was registered as an appeal. The appeal was not in the formatand the requisite numbers of aggrieved parents group was the personsaggrieved.10.The procedure has been laid down in sub-clause 5 ofSection 6 of the 2011 Act. The appeal by the parents should havebeen preferred along with the duly signed form by each aggrievedparents authorizing the filing of such appeal. The complaintaddressed to the Deputy Director of Education was also not theappeal in fact as provided under the said rule. The said rule providesfor the appeal against the decision of the Executive Committee abouthiking the fees. Herein the case, the petitioner had a case thatsuddenly, the management hiked the fees. There was no parents-teacher association. Therefore, the management at its own inviolation of Section 6 of the 2011 Act cannot increase the exorbitantfees.11.Section 6 of the 2011 Act speaks of the regulation of feesin private unaided schools and permanently unaided schools. Therespondents have a case that their school is unaided school. wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(12)Therefore, the management has a exclusive right to increase the fees.Sub-section 1A of Section 6 is about the right of the management tochoose to declare the standard-wise fee structure for all standards atthe time of admission to the students. If the fee structure is declaredfor first part, then fee structure for remaining part shall be declared atleast before one year of commencement of that academic year. Thefirst part comprises of standards first to fifth and second partcomprising of sixth to tenth standards. Such declaration to be madeknown to the parents.12.Sub-section 1B of Section 6 further provides that themanagement of private unaided schools or permanently unaidedschools who does not choose to declare the fee structure as per sub-section 1A, shall be eligible to propose the fee in the school whichshall not be more than previous academic year fee plus an amount offifteen percent of the said fee. However, such schools may increasethe fee after two years from the date the fee approved by theExecutive Committee or Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee as thecase may be. The management has also the power to increase the feeas mentioned in sub-section (1A) or propose the fee higher than therate as provided under sub-section (1B) or before two years asprovided in the proviso to sub-section (1B), in unforeseen events,with the approval of 76 per cent of parents or approval of theExecutive Committee by furnishing reasons or circumstances thereof. wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(13)13.The provisions are clear that the management of theprivate unaided schools and permanently unaided schools arecompetent to propose the fees in such schools. However, such feestructure should be proposed in first and second parts and if no suchfee structure is proposed to be declared, the fees shall not beincreased more than 15%. For increasing fee structure, there must bea structure declared by the management and accepted by the parents.Hike in the fee structure depends on various aspects includinginflation and up-gradation of the standards of the schools. However,where the management wishes to increase the fee after declaring thefee structure more than the fee structure declared or not inunforeseen events, however, the approval of 76% of the parents orExecutive Committee by furnishing reasons or circumstances isessential. 14.The petitioner has a case that suddenly, the fee was hikedwithout following due procedure of law. Therefore, they moved arepresentation to the Deputy Director of Education, who in turn hassent it to the Committee. Sub-section 5 of Section 6 provides for theappeal either by the management or by the parents against thedecision of the Executive Committee. Nothing is placed on recordthat the Executive Committee had taken a decision to increase thefees and made known to parents. For want of any such specificmaterial, the objection of the management that appeal is not in wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(14)proper format would not sustain. Considering the number of parentssigned the complaint with the number of students disclose, thereappears no scope to believe that they were less than 25% of thestudents affected. Prima facie, they were the group of aggrievedparents. 15.The 2011 Act regulates the fees charged by the schoolrun by the private management or Government. The said Act alsodefines the term ‘fee’ with different heads. However, it does notinclude the capitation fee. The petitioners have serious objection thatthe management has collected a huge amount from the parents underthe head of contribution which was not the part of the fee as definedin the Act. These are the illegalities. The school/management has noexplanation to that effect. Since the Regulation of Fee Act is in force,the management has no absolute right to charge the fees as per theirwhims and desire. To regulate the fees, the Act provides for theconstitution of the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee which hasdirect control over the fee to be charged by the management for theeducation. 16.Section 10 of the 2011 Act provides for the powers andfunctions of Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee. It has the power toadjudicate the dispute between the school/management and theParent-Teacher Association regarding fee to be charged by theschool/management from the students. It is a complete code to wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(15)examine the grievances of the respective parties. The Committee haspowers to regulate its own procedure, for the discharge of itsfunctions and have all powers of a Civil Court as is under the Code ofCivil Procedure. The Regulatory Committee has also the power togrant interim stay to the fee determined by the school/management.Sub-section (6) of Section 10 provides that the Divisional FeeRegulatory Committee shall on determining the fee leviable by aprivate school, communicate its decision to the parties concerned andhas to indicate the different heads under which the fee shall be levied.Its order is binding on the private school for two academic years. Inan exceptional circumstance, it has also the power to review its orderpassed under the said Act. 17.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has raised theserious objection that the Regulatory Committee should havedetermine the fees pursuant to the exorbitant increase in the fees.Relevant material was available before the Committee. However, anillegality has been committed authorizing the school/managementonce again to refix the educational fees for the academic year 2023-24. Obviously, the counsel for the contesting respondent has seriousobjection about it.18.As discussed above, sub-section (6) of Section 10authorize the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee to determine thefee levied by the private school wherever there is dispute between the wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(16)school/management and the parents regarding the fee to be chargedby the school/management from the students. The record also doesnot reveal that the parent-teacher association as required under thesaid Act was functioning at the relevant time. In such circumstances,the Committee was to determine the fee.19.Reading the relevant provisions of law, we are of theopinion that the Committee has erred in authorizing theschool/management once again to refix the educational fees for theacademic year 2023. The Regulatory Committee had the power ofdiscovering and production of documents and the respective evidenceon affidavit. If such vast powers are there, the Committee shouldhave exercised its powers to resolve the dispute which otherwisecould not be decided by the parents and the management of theschool. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order of the Committeedirecting the respondent/management of the school to refix theeducational fees for the academic year 2023-24, is against the law. 20.So far as the appreciation of evidence of the parent’sevidence is concerned, we consider it that it would not affect therights of the aggrieved persons. By way of orders of this Court, theveracity of the signatures of the parents on the complaint dated06.02.2023 was tested. Few of the persons came there and they werefound to be genuine. If the school/management has a doubt aboutsignatures of the parents, they should have name it specifically before wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(17)the Committee to verify the genuineness of the signatures. So far asthe double signatures of the common parents are concerned, thepossibility of having children more than one in the school of a singleparent cannot be ruled out. 21.After examining the record, we are satisfied that the rulesregulating the fees has not been properly implemented. Sufficientmaterial to determine the dispute was available before theCommittee. Hence, we deem it fit to relegate the matter to theDivisional Fee Regulatory Committee for determining the fees for theacademic year 2023, by granting a fresh opportunity to both sides onexamining necessary factors as provided under Section 9 of the 2011Act.22.In view of the above, we allow both these petitions partly.23.The impugned judgment and order is quashed and setaside.24.The matter is relegated to the Divisional Fee RegulatoryCommittee for deciding the issued involved in the matter afresh anddetermine the fee to be levied by the respondent/management inview of the 2011 Act.25.Both parties are directed to appear before the DivisionalFee Regulatory Committee on 01.04.2025.26.An endeavour shall be made by the Divisional FeeRegulatory Committee to determine the fees within two months wp-671-2024 judgment.odt(18)thereafter, till then, the management should not force the parents topay the fees as increased by the school/management.27.Rule is made partly absolute.28.No order as to costs.(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S.G. MEHARE, J.)Mujaheed//