Society Of Education And Welfare ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6278 MP

                                                                           WP-11361-2021

                                           1




             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                  WP-11361-2021
          (JAGRUT PALAK SANGH SAMITI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


             WP/20069/2020, WP/13726/2021, WP/17151/2021

5

Jabalpur, Dated : 01-10-2021


      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondents/ State.

Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Gaurav

Chhabra, counsel for respondent No.3.

Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the respondent/ CBSE.

Shri Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the intervenor.

In the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P. No.11361/2021 filed on behalf of Jagrut Palak Sangh Samiti, a

registered Society, has argued that even though the State legislature has

enacted the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vidayalaya (Fees Tatha Sambandhit

Vishayon Ka Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as

'Adhiniyam of 2017') and there under framed the Madhya Pradesh Niji

Vidyalaya (Fees Tatha Sambandhit Vishayon Ka Viniyaman) Rule, 2020

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2020), but in fact, none of the provisions of

the Adhiniyam are being implemented on ground. Reference in particular is

made to the provisions of Section 3 which provides that 'Fee' means any WP-11361-2021

amount by whatever name called, collected directly/indirectly by a private

School for admission of student to any standard or course of study, and shall

include, apart from tuition fee under sub clause (a), various other fee

chargeable on various other head from (b) to (m) such as Library Fee,

Reading Room Fee, Games Fee, Laboratory Fee, Computer Fee, etc.

Section 4 sub section (1) of the Act, which was published in the Government

Gazette on 25th January, 2018 provided that "Within 90 days of

commencement of this Act i.e. w.e.f. 25.1.2018, all private schools shall

submit the audited accounts of the preceding three years in such manner as

may be prescribed. Sub section (2) of Section 4 provides that "the District

Committee for Regulating Fee and Related Issues may inspect the amounts

of such private school whose excess of annual receipts over expenditure as

per its audited accounts is less than 10%". Sub Section (3) of Section 4

provides that "the management of every private school shall submit the

proposed fee structure for the ensuing academic year with such documents

and accounts as may be prescribed." Sub section (1) of Section 5 provides

that "the District Committee for Regulating Fee and Related Issues shall not

fix the fee but shall regulate the increment in fee." Sub Section (2) of

Section 5 provides that "the increment in fee shall be regulated to keep

excess of annual receipts of the year for which the fee is proposed over

expenditure for the same year, within 15 percent of such annual receipts."

Section (3) of Section 5 provides that "Subject to the provisions of sub-

section (2), the management may increase the fee upto 10 percent of the fee

fixed for the preceding year and that District Committee for Regulating Fee

and Related Issues shall be authorized to decide quantum of the increment of WP-11361-2021

fee where such proposed increment is more than 10 percent of the fee

charged in the preceding year, provided that if the proposed increment in fee

is more than 15 percent of the preceding year, the District Committee shall

send the same along with its comments to the State Committee for

Regulating Fee and Related Issues for its decision. Sub section (4) of

Section 5 provides that "the management of a private school shall in its

proposal of increment of fee submitted under sub-section (3) of Section 4

mention the amount payable against the items of fee provided in sub-section

(1) of Section 3 i.e. under different heads. Under the scheme of the Act,

Section 7 provides that "there shall be a District Committee for Regulating

Fee and Relating issues consisting of the District Collector as Chairperson;

District Treasury Officer as a Member; An officer not below the level of

Assistant Director nominated by District Collector as a Member and District

Education Officer as a Member Secretary. Sub section (8) of Section 5

provides that "the District Committee on receiving the proposal under sub-

section (3) of Section 4 shall examine the documents and account presented

before it by the management of the private school and may appoint a

Chartered Accountant to examine the records and submit his report on the

points as may be mentioned by the Committee.

The allegation of the petitioner in the present case, who has produced

several receipts and circulars issued by some of the private schools, is that

despite aforementioned provisions of the Adhiniyam and judgment of this

Court dated 4.11.2020 passed in W.P. No.9293/2020 (Nagrik Upbhokta

Margdarshak Manch and another Vs. State of M.P. & Others) and other

connected matters, most of the schools in district Indore have arbitrarily WP-11361-2021

increased the fee even for the year 2020-21. No break-up of fee under

different heads as per requirement of Section 3 (supra) is given but entire fee

is shown as tuition fee. In fact, one such school issued a Circular which

shows that the school has imposed a condition much contrary to the

directions of this Court that to obtain mark sheet of the result, the parent will

be required to deposit the complete fee for Session 2020-21 and further that

such parents, who are not able to or not interested to deposit the fee of 2020-

21, can apply or request to repeat the same class in Session in 2021-22 with

waiver of fee of session 2020-21 and if they want they can apply for

Transfer Certificate of their ward but they would be given TC as per session

2019-2020 and not of 2020-21 i.e. one class inferior. That according to the

learned counsel for the petitioner would mean that student shall be taken as

having not studied in that school for the entire Session 2020-21 and on that

condition only fee of Session 2020-21 would be waived off and TC shall be

given for session 2019-20. It is argued that despite complaints made to the

District Education Officer by several parents against such schools, no action

whatsoever has been taken.

Even though various allegations have been made by the petitioner

with regard to violation of Adhiniyam of 2017 and the directions issued by

this Court in its earlier W.P. No.9293/2020 dated 4.11.2020, reply filed by

the respondent-State on this aspect is highly unsatisfactory and evasive. In

order therefore to examine the correctness of the allegations that provisions

of the Adhiniyam of 2017 exist only on paper and have actually not been

implemented on ground, we as a test case, direct the respondent State to file

affidavit of the District Education Officer, Indore as to how many private WP-11361-2021

unaided Schools are there in the District of Indore and how many of them

have actually complied the mandate of Section 3, 4, 7 and 8 and other

provisions of the Adhiniyam of 2017 and the Rules of 2020. Such affidavit

shall be filed within two weeks.

List these matters on 09.11.2021 along with W.P. No.4010/2021.

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                            (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
  CHIEF JUSTICE                                     JUDGE




mrs. mishra

          Digitally signed by
          DEEPA MISHRA
          Date: 2021.10.04
          14:51:13 +05'30'