DELHI ABIBHAVAK MAHASANGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The afore-mentioned writ petitions have been filed, inter alia, questioning the right of various aided and unaided schools to fix tuition and other fees from students. The case of the petitioner is that lakhs of students studying in unaided recognized private schools in Delhi would be affected by the decision of this Hon'ble court on the vital questions of law which have been raised by the petitioner association in these Public Interest Litigations. The petitioners state that the respondent schools are not entitled to hike fee w.e.f. 1.4.1999 without following the procedure as laid down by this Hon'ble Court in judgment dated 30/10/1998. It is also submitted that the respondent schools are required to consult the representatives of the parents before taking any decision about the fee hike but the same has not been done. It is alleged that in absence of any valid decision regarding fee hike, the respondent schools are entitled to charge fee from the students w.e.f. 1.4.1999 at the rates which were prevalent on 31/03/1997. It is submitted that the respondent schools had with them large sums of surpluses even as on 31st March 997 and that they were not justified in increasing any fee w.e.f. 1/04/1997 onwards. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to perform their duties as they have not taken any action on the complaint of the petitioner against arbitrary fee hike by the respondent schools. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not so far constituted a statutory committee as contemplated by the judgment dated 30/10/1998 of this court for the purposes of adjudication of disputes pertaining to fee hike in future w.e.f. 1/04/1999. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 we required to examine the account and other records of all the unaided recognized private schools in Delhi under the provisions of Section 18(5) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with Rules 170 and 180 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 but the same has not been done. The petitioners further allege that the Director of Education, in terms of provisions of Section 24 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 was required to make inspection of the respondent schools each year but the same has never been done which tantamounts to failure on the respondent to perform statutory duties as imposed upon them under the provisions of law.

(2.) The impugned order is dated 15/12/1999, the correctness of which has been questioned in this petition. The relevant portion thereof whereby and whereunder fee structure was evolved, reads thus

(3.) Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the unaided recognized private schools ought not to have been permitted by the Director of Education to charge development fee which would amount to permit these students to levy capital expenditure in tuition fees. Learned counsel would contend that the same would contravene the decision of this court in Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh v. UOI AIR 1999 Del 124 as in terms whereof, the unaided recognized private schools are prohibited from charging any amount on account of capital expenditure from the students. The learned counsel would next contend that clause 7 of the impugned order dated 15/12/1999 is in violation of the report of the Justice Santosh Duggal Committee and in any event, the same is a nullity as it suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind.