SUDHIR SAPRA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, assails the order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P/1); order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 15.02.2014 (Annexure P/5).

(2.) THE petitioner No.1 is the father of petitioner No.2 (minor). The petitioner No. 2 is a student of class -VI in Little Angels High School, Gwalior (respondent No.6). The petitioners have challenged the action of respondents whereby they have demanded the arrears of tuition fees and further directed the petitioners to pay the fees as per fee structure mentioned in school diary (page 115) with the return. In this matter, the respondents No. 6 to 8 have taken an objection that respondent school is an unaided private educational institution. It does not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. In addition, it is contended that the present petitioners preferred a complaint before the Collector against the school for demanding three months tuition fees in advance. Learned Collector by order dated 03.05.2013 directed the school to take tuition fees on monthly basis. This order of the Collector has already been stayed by this Court in WP No. 4347/2013 (Annexure R/6 -25). It is submitted that in view of interim order, the institution is even otherwise justified in demanding the fee as per table. In view of preliminary objections and prayer for vacation of stay, with the consent of parties, this matter was heard on the question of maintainability and vacation of stay.

(3.) MS . Sudha C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent school is affiliated to Board of Secondary Education and is governed by the statutory regulation of the Board. Apart from this, the Right of Children to free and compulsory Education is a fundamental right flowing from the Article 21 -A of the Constitution. The Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is also applicable with full force on the said institution. The said institution, although a private body is discharging the public duty and is fulfilling the positive obligation of public nature, hence writ can be issued against a private body when it is necessary to compel such body to enforce any statutory obligation or an obligation of public nature, hence is casted upon such body. It is further contended that private bodies are amenable to writ jurisdiction when such private body is discharging public function and action under challenge runs contrary to any fundamental right or statutory provision.