Yogesh Remchandra Pathre And ... vs The Deputy Director Of Education, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8421 Bom

                                      1                               PIL-37-2021.odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                    Public Interest Litigation No.37 of 2021


 1. Shri Yogesh Ramchandra Pathre,
     Aged about 40 years,
     Occupation Business,
     Plot No.39, Shiv-Abhilasha Apartment,
     Flat No.101, N.I.T. Layout,
     Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur.


 2. Shri Kailash Dinkar Choudhari,
     Aged about 48 years,
     Occupation Business,
     R/o 406, Honey-Archana Complex,
     Untkhana, Nagpur.


 3. Shri Madan Shamraoji Kohale,
     Aged about 49 years,
     Occupation Business,
     R/o 15, Jairam Towers,
     Revati Nagar, Nagpur.


 4. Smt. Trupti Tushar Deshpande,
     Aged about 44 years,
     Occupation Legal Practitioner,
     R/o Ramaji Wadi,
     New Shukrawari, Nagpur.


 5. Shri Dhananjay Neelkanthrao Choudhari,
     Aged about 50 years,
     Occupation Legal Practitioner,
     R/o 89, Sudarshan Nagar,
     New Narsala Road, Nagpur.



::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2023                        ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2023 08:36:31 :::
                                     2                                 PIL-37-2021.odt




 6. Shri Ishwar Anand Kolhe,
     Aged about 47 years,
     Occupation Business,
     R/o Jawahar Nagar,
     Manewada, Nagpur.


 7. Smt. Ratna Jayant Kulkarni,
     Aged about 49 years,
     Occupation Service,
     R/o Hanuman Nagar,
     Nagpur.


 8. Shri Vishal Chandrashekhar Doifode,
     Aged about 45 years,
     Occupation Business,
     R/o Manewada, Nagpur.


 9. Jagrut Palak Samiti (un-registered)
     (Under Order 1 Rule 8 representative
     petition through the same),
     through Vide President Yogesh R. Patre,
     R/o Plot No.39, Flat No.101,
     N.I.T. Layout, Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur.                 ... Petitioners


     Versus
 1. The Deputy Director of Education,
     Nagpur Division, Nagpur.


 2. The Collector, Office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.


 3. Government of Maharashtra,
     through its Secretary, Education Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.



::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2023                        ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2023 08:36:31 :::
                                       3                              PIL-37-2021.odt




 4. School of Scholars,
      Atre Layout, Khamla,
      Nagpur,
      through its Director.                                ... Respondents


 Shri K.B. Ambilwade, Counsel for Petitioner.
 Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent
 Nos.1 to 3.
 Shri P.D. Meghe, Counsel for Respondent No.4.


           CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

Date when arguments were heard : 26th July, 2023 Date when the order was pronounced : 19th August, 2023 P. C. :

1. By the present proceedings initiated in public interest, the

petitioners seek to raise a grievance with regard to discrimination in

the fee structure from one school to another school and pray that such

fee structure should be as per the fee structure prevalent in

Government schools. It is further prayed that there should be

uniformity of the fee structure from Kindergarten to the College level.

2. According to the petitioners, they have formed an Association

under the name and style of 'Jagruk Palak Samiti' to raise grievances in

the matter of increase in fees in each academic year from Kindergarten

to XIIth Standard- H.S.C. The Association has entered into various

communications with the Authorities including the Deputy Director of

Education as well as the Collector, Nagpur. It is stated that imparting

of education and receiving the same being a fundamental right of the

students, there ought to be no discrimination in the fee structure of

4 PIL-37-2021.odt

the private schools on par with the Government schools. Instances of

increase in the fee structure especially at the school run by the

respondent No.4-Society is sought to be highlighted.

3. In the reply filed by the Collector, it has been stated that the

matter falls within the purview of the Deputy Director of Education,

Nagpur Division, Nagpur and the said Authority is competent to look

into the grievances raised by the petitioners. The Deputy Director of

Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur has also filed her affidavit making

a reference to the provisions of the Maharashtra Educational

Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 (for short, 'the Act of 2011')

to submit that the said legislation has been brought into force to

regulate the collection of fee by the educational institutions in the

State of Maharashtra and to provide for matters connected thereto.

The provisions of the said Act are comprehensive and insofar as the

private unaided schools and the colleges are concerned, they have

autonomy in the matter of administration of such schools including

the admission of students and the fee to be charged. The grievances

of the petitioners could be considered under the Act of 2011.

Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Versus State of Karnataka

and others [(2002) 8 SCC 481].

Affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No.4-Society

denying all adverse allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated

that it is governed by the provisions of the Act of 2011 and that the fee

5 PIL-37-2021.odt

as well as revision in the amount of fee are undertaken in accordance

therewith.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have

perused the material on record. We have also gone through the

decisions in (i) Society for Un-Aided P. School of Rajasthan Versus

Union of India and another [AIR 2012 SC 3445], (ii) Arun Digambar

Joshi Versus State of Maharashtra and others [2013(5) Mh.L.J. 419],

(iii) Arun Shivaji Chavare Versus Padmakar Rama Chavare and others

[2015(1) Mh.L.J. 728], (iv) Uran Education Society and others Versus

State of Maharashtra and others [2015(4) Mh.L.J. 920] and

(v) Nitin Ravindra Bansod and others Versus Government of India and

others [2017(5) Mh.L.J. 954]. We find that the Act of 2011 has been

enacted with a view to provide for the regulation of collection of fees

by educational institutions in the State of Maharashtra and also to

provide for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The

Act of 2011 seeks to regulate fees in Government schools, aided

schools, private unaided schools as well as permanently unaided

schools. The Act is comprehensive in nature and is a Code in itself. It

provides for constitution of a Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee

that is empowered to consider various grievances pertaining to

imposition of fees including excess fees. The Act contemplates

formation of Parent-Teachers Association in an educational institution

and also prohibits collection of fees in excess of what has been fixed or

approved under the Act of 2011. After a Parent-Teachers Association

6 PIL-37-2021.odt

is formed, an Executive Committee is thereafter constituted. The

Executive Committee can consider the issue of fixation of the fee

structure. An appeal from the decision of the Executive Committee on

increase in the fee by the Management can be preferred before the

Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee. The factors to be considered

while deciding the fee structure including the provision of instalment

in paying the same has been provided. The Act of 2011 is thus a Code

in itself and it also contains penal provisions for breach of the same.

Since the Act is made applicable to all educational institutions in the

State of Maharashtra, we find that the recourse can be had to the said

Act in the matter of regulation of fee structure and grievances in that

regard.

5. The autonomy in the matter of fixation of fee structure has

been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai

Foundation and others (supra). Such autonomy however is required

to be exercised in the light of the Act of 2011 which requires

involvement of the Parent-Teachers Association even on the aspect of

determination of the fee structure. The over-all control in this regard

vests with the State Government or the Central Government, as the

case may be, in view of Section 5 of the Act of 2011. The facilities and

standard of imparting instructions are likely to differ from school to

school. It is also likely that the amenities provided by one school may

be distinct from the amenities provided by another school. For this

reason, it is possible that the fee structure in one school may be at

7 PIL-37-2021.odt

variance with the fee structure of another school. Various factors are

required to be taken into consideration while determining the fee

structure of a school. It is for this reason that the provisions of the Act

of 2011 would be liable to be taken recourse to in case there is a

dispute with regard to imposition of fees. The modality for resolution

of such issue has been provided in the Act of 2011. The grievance in

that regard is therefore required to be raised and adjudicated in the

manner prescribed therein. We are therefore of the view that there

cannot be uniformity of the fee structure as sought by the petitioners

in all schools for classes from Kindergarten to Junior College. The

same is likely to differ from school to school for various reasons.

6. Hence for the aforesaid reasons, though no direction for having

uniformity in the fee structure of all schools at par with Government

schools as sought by the petitioners cannot be granted, we may only

observe that in case of any grievance in the matter of application of

fee structure, the provisions of the Act of 2011 being comprehensive in

nature, the same provides for the mode of the resolution of such

issues. The petitioners would be free to take recourse to the Act of

2011 in this regard.

7. The present proceedings are disposed of with the aforesaid

observations.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

LANJEWAR