DR. BINU VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This PIL petition is at the instance of a social worker. It is revealed from the pleadings that due to the pandemic, parents of school children are in financial distress and this prompted the PIL petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under rule 4(e) of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules. Multiple relief has been claimed. The prayer clauses read as follows:

(2.) Although relief has primarily been claimed against "the schools", the management of not a single school has been impleaded as a respondent by the PIL petitioner. Obviously, granting the prayers of the PIL petition in the absence of the schools would amount to breach of principles of natural justice. We are conscious of the position in law that the Court may add the schools as respondents but no explanation has been furnished why the PIL petitioner did not implead at least some of them as respondents. This is one reason for declining interference.

(3.) The other reason for declining interference is this. There is a general statement made by the PIL petitioner that parents of school going children are in financial distress. If at all the statement is correct, nothing prevents such parents to approach the Government in a group and seek framing of guidelines for reducing the quantum of tuition fees as well as for other relief during the period of lockdown considering their plight. Apart from the requisite facts and figures based on which a guideline could be framed being absent in this PIL petition, it would require a policy decision to be adopted. In matters relating to academic policy, the courts ought to stay at a distance.