HC: Department of Education empowered to regulate & check commercialization and profiteering by schools not to control the power of collection of fees [Read Judgment]

 On 31 May, the Delhi High Court in the case of Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools v. Directorate of Education consisting of Justice Jayant Nath reiterated that the Administrator has power to regulate education which includes the power to curb commercialization. The bench further stated that if the fees and other charges are unreasonable and exorbitant and amounts to commercialization, then it would be the duty of the administrator to step in and check such activities.

Facts of the case:

A writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking an appropriate writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Directorate of Education in so far as it prevents private unaided recognized schools/members of the petitioner association from collecting a part of the fees i.e. Annual Charges and Development Fees even beyond the Lockdown period and deferring it till physical opening of the schools. The petitioner stated that since the lockdown, the schools were directed to take online classes, therefore, imparting education is not in discontinuity and hence such order of cancelling development fees is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners.

Contention of the Petitioner:

The Petitioner in its contentions submitted before the Court that

1. the impugned action of the respondent seeking to curtail the rights of the private unaided recognized schools to fix their own fees and also to restrict the collection thereof to certain heads/amounts is illegal and without any authority or jurisdiction.
2. the Department of Education i.e. the respondent has limited jurisdiction to regulate the fees, i.e. to prevent commercialization and profiteering and that the fundamental rights of the private unaided educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be trampled upon in the present manner.
3. the order dated 18.04.2020 read with order dated 28.08.2020 was pleaded to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and without jurisdiction or authority.
4. the Department of Education (respondent) instead of seeking to prevent commercialization has been influenced by the dictates of the political institutions aimed at pleasing the larger vote banks of the constituency of the parents not keeping in mind the larger goals of expansion and development of education in mind.

Contention of the Respondent:

The Respondent in its counter affidavit urged before the Court that;

1. the petition to be dismissed as the Lockdown is still in operation and, therefore, the circular dated 18.4.2020 read with circular dated 28.8.2020 continues to be in operation.
2. the petitioner association cannot increase the fee without prior approval of Directorate (Education) as mandated by the Supreme Court in Modern School vs. Union of India & Ors., 2004 (5) SCC
3. on account of acute financial pressure and stress on the general public owing to the Pandemic and measures imposed to deal with it having not abated, in such a situation the attempt of the petitioner to burden the parents by seeking to recover amounts presuming that normal physical functioning has resumed is harsh, unfair and unjust.
4. the rationale behind the impugned order dated 18.4.2020 is to ameliorate to the extent possible the financial constraints being faced by parents and to obviate the possibility of a child being denied education due to incapability of parents to defray the school fees.

Observation and Judgement of Court:

The Delhi High Court in its observation stated that

1. Jurisdiction of Department of Education is to regulate to check commercialization and profiteering by schools.
2. What follows from a catena judgments of the Supreme Court and of this court is that the scope of power and authority of the DOE to interfere with the fixation / collection of fees by unaided educational institutions is well defined. The DOE does exercise control for the purpose of prevention of commercialization of education by such unaided institutions only. It is to ensure that a recognized unaided school does not indulge in collection of capitation fees or profiteering.
3. If it is found that the fees and other charges are wholly unreasonable and exorbitant and amount to commercialisation, then it would be the duty of the Administrator to step in and check such activities.

The bench further observed that the counsel for the respondent was misplaced as there was no observation to the contrary in this judgment which allows the respondent to regulate and control the power of collection of fees other than fees which results in commercialisation or exploitation.

Further, it was pointed out that it cannot be said that the school building is completely shut. The building would remain functional for administrative reasons and even, depending on facts and circumstances of the case, for conducting online classes, etc. and hence minimal fees can be charged on that basis.

As noted, the private recognized unaided schools are clearly dependent only on the fees collected to cover their salary, establishment and all other expenditure on the schools. Any regulations or order which seek to restrict or in-definitely postpone their powers to collect normal and usual fees as is sought to be done by the impugned orders is bound to create grave financial prejudice and harm to the schools.

The petition was thus disposed off.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :