[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ku. Chitrakshi D/O. Yogesh Rangwani, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Dept. Of ... on 16 February, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:3170-DB
1 J WP-3228-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3228 OF 2025
1. Ku. Chitrakshi D/o Yogesh Rangwani,
Aged : Minor, Through her natural
guardian her father Shri. Yogesh Rangwani.
2. Yogesh S/o Mohandas Rangwani,
Aged about : 40 Years, Occ. Business,
Both 1 and 2 R/o. Near Shanti Kuti,
Gowardhan Nagar, Tumsar. .....PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of School Education and Sports,
Through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Zilla Parishad Square,
Bhandara.
3. The District Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad Square, Bhandara.
4. The Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Khapa Road,
Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara.
5. The Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharti Bhawan,
Central Park, Lokmat Square,
Dhantoli, Nagpur.
6. The Maharashtra State Commission
for Protection of Children Rights,
3rd Floor, Government Transport
Service, Sir Pochakhanwala Road,
Worli, Mumbai through
its Administrative Officer.
2 J WP-3228-2025.odt
7. Father Agnel School,
Station Road, Tudka, Tahsil Tumsar,
Dist. Bhandara, through its Principal.
8. Vidhyasagar Mandal,
Station Road, Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara,
Through its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nitin A. Lalwani, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. P. P. Pendke, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 5 & 6/State.
Ms L. Y. Malewar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Mr. P. Sathianathan, Advocate with Mr. W. T. Mathew, Advocate for respondent
Nos.7 and 8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATED : 16.02.2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)
. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.
2. A short question which falls for consideration is whether the
student of 7th standard can be denied education in the school on the
ground that she has not paid the fees as asked by the school?
3. For answering the aforesaid question, few facts would be
necessary. The petitioner No.1 is a minor student and petitioner No. 2
is her father. The petitioner No. 1 was admitted in respondent No. 7
school in 6th standard from academic year 2023-24 and she was
promoted to 7th standard in the academic year 2024-25.
3 J WP-3228-2025.odt
4. It is the case of the petitioner No. 2 that since he lodged his
protest with respondent Nos. 2 to 6, that respondent No. 7 school was
not following the norms and law and had been engaged in profiteering
and exploitation of the children, more particularly, by fixing the fee
arbitrarily and by not using NCERT books, transfer certificate was
issued. According to petitioners, since the grievance was raised, drastic
action was taken by respondent school. The petitioner No.1 had
appeared in the final examination of Standard VII and has passed the
aforesaid examination. The respondent Nos.7 and 8 on 24.03.2025 had
issued a notice to the petitioner No.1 that if she fails to pay the
outstanding fees of Rs.23,900/- within three days of the receipt of this
notice, the School shall issue Transfer Certificate/Leaving Certificate as
against the petitioner No.1 alongwith marksheet for the academic year
2024-25. In pursuance to the aforesaid notice, the respondent No.7 -
School issued Transfer Certificate to the petitioner No.1 and thus,
expelled her from the School.
5. It is the case of the petitioners through their learned counsel
Mr. Nitin Lalwani that since the school is governed by the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (for short, "Act
4 J WP-3228-2025.odt
of 2009"), the act of the respondent school in issuing transfer certificate
was contrary to the law.
6. Per contra, Mr. Sathianathan learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have contended that it is the petitioner No. 2,
who is to be blamed for creating various problems. According to him,
petitioner No. 2 has unnecessarily indulged into creating problems for
respondent No. 7 school since the petitioner No. 2 had not only filed
incorrect complaints with various authorities but had also tried to
outrage the modesty of one of the teachers which resulted into
registration of First Information Report. He submitted that the
petitioner has in fact, given threat to self immolate which is nothing but
a striking example of arm twisting tactics.
7. According to Mr. Sathianathan, the provisions of the Act of
2009 cannot be made applicable to it since respondent No. 7 school is
affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education and is also
registered and recognized as minority institution by State of
Maharashtra, which is unaided. He thus, submits that since the
petitioner No. 2 has not paid the fees for petitioner No.1, in spite of
several notices, the transfer certificate was rightly issued.
5 J WP-3228-2025.odt
8. He further submitted that on 18.2.2024, for non payment of
school fees, notices were issued to 32 parents and since initially there
was no response from the parents or students, a final notice was also
issued. He submitted that name of petitioner No.1 was removed from
the rolls of the school vide transfer certificate dated 27.3.2025.
9. According to him, school fees for class 6 and 7 amounting to
Rs. 23,900/- was not paid by petitioner No.2. He further submitted
that as on the date of filing of the affidavit on 30.6.2025, it does not
have any seat left in any class so as to accommodate any child as it has
exhausted strength of 40 seats for class 8 as per CBSE guidelines.
According to him, it being minority institute i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 6
cannot compel it to admit the student though fee is not paid.
10. Mr. Sathianathan, learned counsel further submitted that in
the year 2022, the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara had
forced respondent No. 7 school to take approval under the Act of 2009.
According to him, the said act of Education Officer to compel the
school to take approval under the Act of 2009 is without any authority
of law and therefore, the alleged approval granted to respondent No. 7
6 J WP-3228-2025.odt
vide letter dated 26.4.2022 is without any legal sanction and without
authority of law in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. In short,
his contention is that recognition letter dated 26.4.2022 has absolutely
no meaning and is not at all binding on the respondents. The approval
dated 26.4.2022 (page 29) is filed on record by the petitioners.
11. Respondent No. 3 Block Development Officer, Panchayat
Samiti, Khapa Road, Tumsar through learned AGP has also filed its
affidavit in reply on 11.11.2025. By way of affidavit, it supported the
stand of the petitioners saying that since the new academic session
(2025-26) has already started since 23.6.2025 and that petitioner No. 1
is still out of school, this Court may be pleased to issue appropriate
direction so as to prevent further educational loss in favour of the
petitioner No. 1.
12. Respondent No. 6 has also filed its affidavit dated
17.12.2025 and stated that the details of the student studying in CBSE
and State Board Schools is shown in United District Information
System for Education (UDISE) portal. In the said portal, it was
originally reflected that the petitioner No. 1child had taken admission
7 J WP-3228-2025.odt
in class 8 in the school known as Smt. A. Pashine Kanya School,
Dasgaon (Bu.), Gondia, for academic year 2025-26. It was further
stated that while checking the said portal on 17.12.2025, it was
observed that petitioner No.1 has left the said school from the academic
year 2025-26. Thus, according to respondent No.7, petitioner No.1
has removed her admission from the said school after taking admission
in the same school which is also reflected in the said portal.
13. The said contention was countered by petitioner No. 1 by
filing additional submission on 16.12.2025. In paragraph 3 (page 248),
the petitioner No. 1 contended that she has never been to the above
school and further there is no question of she being admitted in the said
school, as all her documents like original mark sheet, transfer certificate
are with her and same were never submitted to any school.
14. In the aforesaid background, the issue has cropped up
regarding the student's education on the one hand and the act of
respondent No. 7 of issuing transfer certificate in favour of petitioner
No.1 for non-payment of tuition fees, on another hand.
8 J WP-3228-2025.odt
15. It is apt to mention that the Constitution of India, more
particularly, Part III deals with fundamental rights, was amended and
consequently, by the Constitution (86th Amendment to Act of 2002),
Article 21-A was introduced, which reads as under:
"21-A-Right to Education -
The State shall provide free and compulsory
education to all children of age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as
the State may by law determine."
Further, the Act called as Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
2009) was enacted under the umbrella of Article 21-A of the
Constitution of India.
16. In today's world, importance of education cannot be
undermined as its due to the education only, the personality of person
blossoms. A girl student i.e. petitioner No.1, who is 13 year old was
issued with the transfer certificate for non payment of fees and
consequently was deprived of taking education. At present, the girl has
not taken any admission in any school. The respondent Nos. 7 and 8
apart from saying that the petitioners have not paid fees have also
contended that petitioner No. 2 has, in fact, threatened to "self
9 J WP-3228-2025.odt
immolate". The exact pleadings made by respondent Nos.7 and 8, in
affidavit dated 30.6.2025, more particularly, in paragraph 17 (page
106), are as under:
"17. Needless to say further, the petitioner No. 2 has caused serious
mental, physical and academic damage to his own daughter for the
sake of his political mileage. Moreover, in the later paras, the
respondent No. 7 has further placed on record that how the
petitioner No. 2 threatened to self immolate along with his
daughter with petrol and the Block Education Officer as well as the
Education Officer has issued letters to the Superintendent of Police,
Bhandara and Police Inspector, PS Tumsar. Such action and threats
by the petitioner No. 2 needs to be taken cognizance of by this
Hon'ble Court and the life and limb of the petitioner No.1 requires
to be protected from the violent hands of the petitioner No.2".
17. It is thus clear that in one breath, respondent No. 7 has
shown concern about safety of petitioner No.1 and in another, has
issued a transfer certificate in favour of petitioner No. 1. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Sukdeb Saha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine 1515 while dealing with the
issue of suicide committed by the students has issued the guidelines and
directions in paragraph 35, which reads thus:
(iii) Guidelines:--
35. Keeping in view of the above, and in exercise of the powers
conferred upon this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and treating
this pronouncement as law declared by this Court under Article
141, we hereby issue the following guidelines, which shall
remain in force and be binding until such time as appropriate
10 J WP-3228-2025.odt
legislation or regulatory frameworks are enacted by the
competent authority. The Guidelines are prescribed as under:
I. All educational institutions shall adopt and implement a
uniform mental health policy, drawing cues from
the UMMEED Draft Guidelines, the MANODARPAN
initiative, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. This
policy shall be reviewed and updated annually and made
publicly accessible on institutional websites and notice boards of
the institutes.
II. All educational institutions with 100 or more enrolled
students shall appoint/engage at least one qualified counsellor,
psychologist, or social worker with demonstrable training in
child and adolescent mental health. Institutions with fewer
students shall establish formal referral linkages with external
mental health professionals.
III. All educational institutions shall ensure optimal student-to-
counsellor ratios. Dedicated mentors or counsellors shall be
assigned to smaller batches of students, especially during
examination periods and academic transitions, to provide
consistent, informal, and confidential support.
IV. All educational institutions, more particularly the coaching
institutes/centres, shall, as far as possible, refrain from engaging
in batch segregation based on academic performance, public
shaming, or assignment of academic targets disproportionate to
students' capacities.
V. All educational institutions shall establish written protocols
for immediate referral to mental health services, local hospitals,
and suicide prevention helplines. Suicide helpline numbers,
including Tele-MANAS and other national services, shall be
prominently displayed in hostels, classrooms, common areas,
and on websites in large and legible print.
VI. All teaching and non-teaching staff shall undergo
mandatory training at least twice a year, conducted by certified
mental health professionals, on psychological first-aid,
identification of warning signs, response to self-harm, and
referral mechanisms.
VII. All educational institutions shall ensure that all teaching,
non-teaching, and administrative staff are adequately trained to
engage with students from vulnerable and marginalised
backgrounds in a sensitive, inclusive, and non-discriminatory
manner. This shall include, but not be limited to, students
11 J WP-3228-2025.odt
belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST),
Other Backward Classes (OBC), Economically Weaker Sections
(EWS), LGBTQ+ communities, students with disabilities, those
in out-of-home care, and students affected by bereavement,
trauma, or prior suicide attempts, or intersecting form of
marginalisation.
VIII. All educational institutions shall establish robust,
confidential, and accessible mechanisms for the reporting,
redressal, and prevention of incidents involving sexual assault,
harassment, ragging, and bullying on the basis of caste, class,
gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or ethnicity.
Every such institution shall constitute an internal committee or
designated authority empowered to take immediate action on
complaints and provide psycho-social support to victims.
Institutions shall also maintain zero tolerance for retaliatory
actions against complainants or whistle-blowers. In all such
cases, immediate referral to trained mental health professionals
must be ensured, and the student's safety, physical and
psychological, shall be prioritised. Failure to take timely or
adequate action in such cases, especially where such neglect
contributes to a student's self-harm or suicide, shall be treated as
institutional culpability, making the administration liable to
regulatory and legal consequences.
IX. All educational Institutions shall regularly organise
sensitisation programmes (physical and/or online) for parents
and guardians on student mental health. It shall be the duty of
the institution to sensitise the parents and guardians to avoid
placing undue academic pressure, to recognise signs of
psychological distress, and to respond empathetically and
supportively. Further, mental health literacy, emotional
regulation, life skills education, and awareness of institutional
support services shall be integrated into student orientation
programmes and co-curricular activities.
X. All educational institutions shall maintain anonymised
records and prepare an annual report indicating the number of
wellness interventions, student referrals, training sessions, and
mental health-related activities. This report shall be submitted to
the relevant regulatory authority, which may be the State
Education Department, University Grants Commission (UGC),
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Central
Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), or as otherwise
indicated.
12 J WP-3228-2025.odt
XI. All educational institutions shall prioritise extracurricular
activities, including sports, arts, and personality development
initiatives. Examination patterns shall be periodically reviewed
to reduce academic burden and to cultivate a broader sense of
identity among students beyond test scores and ranks.
XII. All educational institutions, including coaching centres and
training institutes, shall provide regular, structured career
counselling services for students and their parents or guardians.
These sessions shall be conducted by qualified counsellors and
shall aim to reduce unrealistic academic pressure, promote
awareness of diverse academic and professional pathways, and
assist students in making informed and interest-based career
decisions. Institutions shall ensure that such counselling is
inclusive, sensitive to socioeconomic and psychological contexts,
and does not reinforce narrow definitions of merit or success.
XIII. All residential-based educational institutions, including
hostel owners, wardens and caretakers, shall take proactive steps
to ensure that campuses remain free from harassment, bullying,
drugs, and other harmful substances, thereby ensuring a safe and
healthy living and learning environment for all students.
XIV. All residential-based institutions shall install tamper-proof
ceiling fans or equivalent safety devices, and shall restrict access
to rooftops, balconies, and other high-risk areas, in order to deter
impulsive acts of self-harm.
XV. All coaching hubs, including but not limited to Jaipur,
Kota, Sikar, Chennai, Hyderabad, Delhi, Mumbai, and other
cities where students migrate in large numbers for competitive
examination preparation, shall implement heightened mental
health protections and preventive measures. These regions,
having witnessed disproportionately high incidents of student
suicides, require special attention. The concerned authorities,
namely, the Department of Education, District Administration,
and management of educational institutions, shall ensure the
provision of regular career counselling for students and parents,
regulation of academic pressure through structured academic
planning, availability of continuous psychological support, and
the establishment of institutional mechanisms for monitoring
and accountability to safeguard student mental well-being.
36. The above guidelines shall apply to all educational
institutions across India, including public and private schools,
colleges, universities, training centres, coaching institutes,
residential academies, and hostels, irrespective of their affiliation.
13 J WP-3228-2025.odt
We may clarify that these guidelines are not in supersession but
in parallel to the ongoing work of the National Task Force on
Mental Health Concerns of Students and are being issued to
provide an interim protective architecture in the interregnum.
We believe that these guidelines shall be read as complementary
to the ongoing work of the National Task Force and would
inform and assist the National Task Force in the development of
a more comprehensive and inclusive framework.
(iv) Directions:--
37. All States and Union Territories shall, as far as practicable,
notify rules within two months from the date of this judgment
mandating registration, student protection norms, and grievance
redressal mechanisms for all private coaching centres. These
rules shall require compliance with the mental health safeguards
prescribed herein.
38. A district-level monitoring committee shall be constituted
in each district under the chairpersonship of the District
Magistrate or Collector. The committee may include
representatives from the departments of education, health, and
Child protection, civil society and shall oversee implementation,
conduct inspections, and receive complaints.
39. Having regard to the serious and continuing nature of the
concerns addressed herein, we direct the Union of India to file a
compliance affidavit before this Court within a period of 90 days
from the date of this judgment. The affidavit shall detail the
steps taken to implement these guidelines, the coordination
mechanisms established with State Governments, the status of
regulatory rulemaking with respect to coaching centres, and the
monitoring systems put in place. The affidavit shall also indicate
the expected timeline for the completion of the report and
recommendations of the National Task Force on Mental Health
Concerns of Students.
40. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the Ministry of
Education, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of
Law and Justice, University Grants Commission, National
Council of Educational Research and Training, Central Board of
Secondary Education, All India Council for Technical
Education, and the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union
Territories for immediate compliance and necessary action.
14 J WP-3228-2025.odt
18. It was also observed in paragraph 5 by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, which is reproduced as under:
"5. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in his book "Education and the Significance
of Life," noted that the function of education is to create human
beings who are integrated and therefore intelligent. Krishnamurti
cautioned against turning education into a system of conformity and
performance, warning that the mind of a child must not be
conditioned by fear, competition, or compulsion. These philosophical
foundations remind us that education is meant to liberate, not burden
the learner, and that its true success lies not in grades or rankings but
in the holistic growth of a human being capable of living with dignity,
confidence, and purpose".
19. If the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as true spirit of Article 21-A and the Act of 2009 is taken into
consideration, it can be definitely said that the respondent Nos.7 and 8
were not at all justified in issuing the transfer certificate. Various
authorities are cited by Mr. Sathianathan including a judgment in case
of T.M.A. PAI Foundation and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors ,
reported in (2002)8SCC 481, in case of Society for Unaided P. School
of Rajasthan V. Union of India and anr, reported in AIR 2012 (6) SCC
1, judgment in Writ Petition Stamp No. 95629/2020, in case of
Association of Indian Schools and Anr Vs. The State of Maharashtra
along with connected matters, decided on 1.3.2021 as well as the order
dated 27.6.2022, passed in Writ Petition No. 2118/2021, of this Court.
The gist of aforesaid judgments can be said to be that the private
15 J WP-3228-2025.odt
unaided minority school is not covered by the Act of 2009 and such
being the position, there would be no corresponding right vested in
student to seek admission to such school and it would be absolutely
within the discretion and all prerogative of private minority unaided
school. The education institutions cannot be prevented from taking
such actions as may be permissible in law against the students who are
in arrears or have defaulted in payment of fees for the earlier academic
years or subsequent academic years. There cannot be interference in
administration of unaided minority educational institution.
20. The law laid down by the aforesaid judgments, cannot be
disputed at all. The factual matrix changes entire gamut. According to
respondent Nos. 7 and 8, in the year 2022, the Education Officer had
forced the school to take approval under the Act of 2009 and said act is
without any authority of law. We have perused the approval dated
26.4.2022, which is at page 29. The said communication shows that
the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara has granted
an approval to the school which clearly shows that the provisions of the
Act of 2009 are made applicable to the respondent No.8 and
subsequently to respondent No.7.
16 J WP-3228-2025.odt
21. Further if communication dated 11.10.2007 (page 28),
issued by Government of Maharashtra, School Education and Sports
Department addressed to the Secretary, Central Board of Secondary
Education, Community Centre, New Delhi, copy of which is forwarded
to respondent No.8, is seen, it would be crystal clear that the
Government of Maharashtra has issued no objection certificate for
starting a school in CBSE section at respondent No.7 to be affiliated to
the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi on a condition
that school shall abide by the rules and regulations stipulated by the
Government of Maharashtra.
22. Thus, holistic reading of communications dated 11.10.2007
and 26.4.2022 would clearly reveal that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have
agreed to abide by rules and regulations stipulated by Government of
Maharashtra.
23. At this juncture, it would be necessary to mention here that
respondent Nos. 7 and 8 cannot blow both hot and cold. The act of
respondent Nos. 7 and 8 of taking benefit under communications dated
11.10.2007 and 26.4.2022 on one hand by running the school and on
17 J WP-3228-2025.odt
other hand saying that the provisions of Act of 2009 are not applicable
is a striking example of unfairness and arbitrary action. Once,
respondent Nos.7 and 8 have acted on the aforesaid communications,
now they cannot permit to run away from their responsibilities.
24. There is one more aspect which needs to be seen to resolve
the issue. The communication dated 26.4.2022, according to
respondent Nos. 7 and 8, is obtained under force and has no legal basis
but surprisingly the learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 has not
pointed out to us that same is challenged by preferring any proceeding.
Thus, it is crystal clear that act of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 is illegal and
unfair.
25. Thus, in our considered opinion, the provisions of the Act of
2009 are squarely applicable to respondent No.7 - school being run by
respondent No.8 - Management. Having once held that the provisions
of the Act of 2009 are applicable to respondent Nos.7 and 8, the
impugned action of expelling petitioner No.1 from the school before
the completion of her elementary education is clearly in violation of
Section 16(4) of the aforesaid Act of 2009 and is therefore
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
18 J WP-3228-2025.odt
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Nitin Lalwani, has
tendered across the bar the Affiliation Bye-Laws of 2018. The
respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not disputed the fact that the aforesaid
Affiliation Bye-Laws of 2018 are binding upon them and are specifically
mentioned as applicable in the extension of general affiliation up to the
secondary level as issued by the CBSE. A perusal of the aforesaid Bye-
Laws further affirms the fact that the provisions of the Act of 2009 are
applicable to respondent Nos.7 and 8. The relevant Clause 2.4.5 of the
aforesaid Bye-Laws reads thus :
"2.4.5 ADMISSION OF STUDENTS
(a) Admission in the school affiliated to the CBSE shall be
made without any distinction of gender, disability, religion,
race, caste, creed and place of birth etc. Reservation, if any,
shall be governed by the applicable Education Act/Rules of
the appropriate Government.
(b) For the purpose of admission and extent of schools'
responsibility for Free and Compulsory Education the
school shall be governed by the provisions of the Right to
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and
the rules framed there under.
(c) The school shall not take any direct admission in the classes
X and XII without following the procedure prescribed by
the Board in this regard."
27. A similar restriction is imposed by the approval order dated
26.04.2022 issued by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
19 J WP-3228-2025.odt
Bhandara, in favour of the present respondent Nos.7 and 8. The
aforesaid approval order is at record page No.29. A perusal of the
approval order dated 26.04.2022, particularly Clause 7 thereof,
specifically provides that a child admitted to the school shall not be
expelled until completion of elementary education.
28. It is relevant to point out here one more objection raised by
Shri. Sathianathan, learned counsel, regarding the applicability of the
Act of 2009 to respondent Nos.7 and 8. Shri. Sathianathan has drawn
our attention to the reply filed by respondent Nos.7 and 8, thereby
pointing out that the petitioner No.1 was admitted to respondent No.7-
School by way of normal admission procedure and thus does not fall
within the RTE category and hence, the provisions of the aforesaid Act
of 2009 are not applicable in the case of the present petitioners.
29. The aforesaid objection raised by respondent Nos.7 and 8 is
being recorded only for the purpose of rejection. The reason being that
the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,
was enacted with the object of providing free and compulsory education
to all children between the ages of 6 to 14 years. The word "child" has
20 J WP-3228-2025.odt
been defined in Section 2(c) of the aforesaid Act of 2009, which reads
thus :
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
(a) ......
(b) ......
(c) "child" means a male or female child of the age of six to
fourteen years."
Similarly, Section 3(1), which provides for the right of a
child to free and compulsory education, reads thus:
"3. Right of child to free and compulsory education. -
(1) Every child of the age of six to fourteen years, including a
child referred to in clause (d) or clause (e) of section 2, shall
have the right to free and compulsory education in a
neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her
elementary education."
30. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Act of 2009 is
applicable to every child between the age group of 6 to 14 years. It is an
undisputed fact that the petitioner No.1 is of 13 years and thus, the Act
of 2009 is applicable to her. The respondent Nos.7 and 8 have also not
disputed the applicability of the aforesaid Act of 2009 on the basis of
age of the petitioner No.1.
21 J WP-3228-2025.odt
31. The respondent Nos.7 and 8, in paragraph 45 of their reply,
have specifically contended that the respondent No.7 - School is
regularly following the norms mentioned in the Maharashtra
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act of 2011") for the sake of brevity. Having admitted
so as to the applicability of the Act of 2011, the impugned action of
expelling the petitioner No.1 from respondent No.7 - School on the
ground of non-payment of fees is again unsustainable in the eyes of law.
It is worth to mention here that the petitioners have specifically stated
on oath in the memo of petition that they had never refused to pay the
fees. On the contrary, petitioner No.2 had attempted to pay the fees on
27.03.2025 but was wrongfully and forcibly denied entry into the
school premises by its staff. Thus, the petitioners were always ready and
willing to pay the fees to respondent Nos.7 and 8.
32. In view of the aforesaid circumstance and in view of the
admission regarding the applicability of the Act of 2011 to respondent
Nos.7 and 8, the impugned action of expelling petitioner No.1 is not in
consonance with the provisions of the Act of 2011, more specifically
Section 3A of the aforesaid Act of 2011, which reads thus:
22 J WP-3228-2025.odt
"3A. Payment of fee and penalty for late or non payment.
(1) The fee shall be paid by the parents monthly or bi-monthly
or quarterly, as decided by the school management:
Provided that, if the parents of the children intend to pay the
fee half-yearly or yearly, the management of the school shall
allow parents to pay the fee accordingly and may at their
discretion offer rebate.
(2) The management of the private unaided schools and
permanently unaided schools shall be entitled to charge a
delay payment fee or late payment fee, with penal interest.
The rate of penal interest shall be such, as may be decided
by the Government by order."
The aforesaid amended Section 3A was inserted by the
Maharashtra Act No.28 of 2019 on 26.08.2019.
33. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Nitin
Lalwani, submits that the respondent Nos.7 and 8 were at the most
entitled to charge a delay payment fee with penal interest as decided by
the Government and not to expel petitioner No.1 from the School. The
aforesaid action at the behest of respondent Nos.7 and 8 is clearly
exceeding the right as provided under statute and thus, is unsustainable
in the eyes of law.
34. In view of the aforesaid reasons, in our considered opinion,
the impugned action at the behest of respondent Nos.7 and 8 in
expelling the petitioner No.1 is illegal and bad in law, and hence
23 J WP-3228-2025.odt
deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the petition
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned action at the behest of respondent
Nos.7 and 8 in expelling the petitioner No.1 from the
respondent No.7 - School by issuing the Transfer Certificate
dated 27.03.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The petitioners to deposit the arrears of fees within
a period of two weeks from today.
iv) Because of the unfortunate litigation faced by the
petitioner No.1 at the tender age, the respondent Nos.7 and 8
are directed not to charge the late fees or penal interest on the
arrears of fees in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case.
35. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No
order as to costs.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
TAMBE
Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/02/2026 14:56:10
