Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suhani Ahuja And Another vs Apeejay School Faridabad on 30 November, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153392
RSA-3489 of 2023(O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:153392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
138
RSA-3489 of 2023(O&M)
Date of Order:30.11.2023
Suhani Ahuja and another
.Appellants
Versus
Apeejay School Faridabad ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. H.L.Tiku, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Yashmeet, Advocate and
Mr. Manav Bajaj, Advocate
for the respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. Though an application for condonation of delay of 765 days in
filing the appeal has been filed, however, on the request of the court the
learned counsel representing the appellants has agreed to address the court
on the merits of the case.
2. The correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by
the courts below is assailed by the defendants in this regular second appeal.
The plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.1,58,956/- with pendente lite and
future interest has been decreed. The recovery is with respect to the arrears
of school fee.
3. Both the courts have found that the high school fee was in
accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel representing the appellants contends that
the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. He submits that the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153392
RSA-3489 of 2023(O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:153392
matter can only be examined by the Fee Funds Regulatory Committee. In
fact, this issue has already been examined in detail while deciding Civil
Revision No.3297 of 2021 and other connected cases vide judgment dated
20.07.2022. The relevant discussion reads as under:-
"With highest respect, it is evident that the attention of
the Bench in the aforesaid case was not specifically drawn to
sub Rule (ii) of Rule 158A. On a careful reading thereof, it is
evident that the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee is
empowered to order refund of the excess amount charged by the
school and not vice-versa. Rule 158A is extracted as under :-
"158A. Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee.-
(1) There shall be a committee to be known as Fee
and Fund Regulatory Committee at the Divisional
Level under the Chairmanship of Divisional
Commissioner, who shall be assisted by the
following officer/officials:-
(i) District Education Officer/District Elementary
Education Officer (ex-officio member) to be
nominated by the Chairman.
(ii) a retired Accounts Officer/Chartered
Accountant to be nominated by the Chairman on
such terms and conditions, as may be approved by
the Government.
(2) Where the Committee on receipt of any
complaint or otherwise is satisfied after due
enquiry, that a private school has charged
capitation fee or fee in excess of the fee as notified
by the school, it would ensure redressal of the
complaint so received within a period of sixty days
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153392
RSA-3489 of 2023(O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:153392
from the receipt of the complaint and it may.-
(i) direct the concerned institution to refund the
capitation fee or fee in excess of the fee as notified
by the school, as the case may be;
(ii) recommend withdrawal of the recognition/
affiliation of the school and the Director shall pass
the orders accordingly.
(3) Before taking any action or passing any order
sub-rule (2) above, the committee shall provide a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to such an
institution."
Section 22 of the Haryana School Education Act, 1995
(hereinafter referred as 'the Act') bars the jurisdiction of Civil
Court only with respect to any matter in relation to which the
Government or the Director or any other person authorised by
the Government or the Director is empowered by or under the
Act.
Section 22 of the Act is extracted as under :-
"22. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred.--No civil
court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any
matter in relation to which the Government or the
Director or any other person authorised by the
Government or Director or any other officer or
authority appointed or specified by or under this
Act, is empowered by or under this Act or exercise
any power, and no injunction shall be granted by
any civil court in respect of any thing which is
done or intended to be done by or under this Act."
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
this Court is of the view that the interpretation of Rule 158A
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153392
RSA-3489 of 2023(O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:153392
read with Section 22 of the Act requires re-consideration.
Ordinarily, this Court would have referred the
matter for re-examination to a larger Bench, however,
learned counsel representing the respondents has
brought the attention of the Court to the order passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.8544
of 2022 which has been filed assailing the correctness of
the judgment passed by in A peejay S chool's case (supra)
on 13.05.2022, which reads as under :-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Rule 158 A of the Haryana School Education
Rules, 2003 as amended on 28.01.2014 do not
provide for a remedy of recovery in respect of fee
of the school.
Issue notice.
On the issue of interim relief, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
apprehension is that there are similar other cases
pending and based on the impugned judgment
those appeals may also be rejected.
In view thereof, we direct that the impugned
judgment will not have effect of law qua other
cases till we consider these matters."
It is evident that the Supreme Court, while issuing notice,
has directed that the impugned judgment shall not have effect of
law qua the pending cases till the matter is decided by the
Supreme Court. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of Civil
Court to decide a civil dispute is plenary. The provisions
excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Court are required to be
strictly construed. On a careful reading of Section 22 of the Act,
it is evident that the bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153392
RSA-3489 of 2023(O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:153392
neither absolute nor omnipotent and there may be cases which
may still be entertained by the Civil Courts including a suit filed
by the school to recover fee from its students. The jurisdiction of
Civil Court is excluded only in respect of the cases which
strictly fall within the domain of the provisions of the Act. The
Act covers the cases in which the Government or the Director or
any other person authorised by the Government or the Director
or any other officer or authority specified by or under this Act is
empowered, in this regard, by or under the Act. While
interpreting a statute, each word, phrase, punctuation mark has
to be given complete and full meaning. As already noticed the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is plenary except where it has
been specifically excluded by the statute and further, a proper
alternative redressal forum has been provided under law. Once
it is evident that Section 22 of the Act does not absolutely bar
the jurisdiction of Civil Court, in such circumstances, the Court
is required to scrutinize the facts of each case before finally
opining on the question of exclusion of jurisdiction.
On a careful reading of the judgment passed in A peejay
S chool's case (supra), it is evident that the attention of the
Bench was not drawn to sub rule (ii) of rule 158A of the
Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 or due to an oversight,
the Bench did not comprehend the scope of jurisdiction of the
Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee constituted by the
Government under the Rules.
Consequently, with highest respect, this Court expresses
its inability to follow the interpretation in the case of A peejay S
chool's case (supra)."
5. The learned counsel representing the appellants did not press
any other argument.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
7. Dismissed.
8. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, therefore, no
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153392
RSA-3489 of 2023(O&M) -6- 2023:PHHC:153392
separate order on the application for condonation of delay is required to be
passed.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
November 30, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153392
6 of 6
