Kerala High Court
Sudheer vs S.N.Educational & Cultural Society on 23 November, 2008
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/13TH MAGHA 1933
OPC.No. 238 of 2012 ()
-------------------------------
OS. NO. 891/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .
CMA.43/2010 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA.
.........
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------- --
1. SUDHEER, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.KOLLARA GOPALAN, EDATHIRUTHY VILLAGE AND DESOM
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. SUNILKUMAR,
S/O THEKKINIYEDATH NADARAJAN MASTER
VALAPPAD VILLAGE AND DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH
SMT.SMITHA GEORGE
SRI.K.G.RAJEESH
SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. S.N.EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY
CHENDRAPPINNY, KODUNGALLUR TALUK
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SUBRAMANIAN
EDAMUTTAM.P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK
THRISSUR-680 568.
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
S N VIDHYA BHAVAN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
CHENDRAPPINNY, EDAMUTTAM.P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK
THRISSUR-680 568.
3. THE SECRETARY,
S.N.EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY
CHENDRAPPINNY, EDAMUTTAM.P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK
THRISSUR-680 568.
tss
OP(C) NO.238/2012
4. THE TREASURER,
S.N.EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY
CHENDRAPPINNY, EDAMUTTAM.P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK
THRISSUR-680 568.
5. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.1630-A, ANNA NAGAR WEST
J-BLOCK, CHENNAI-600 040
REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY (REGIONAL OFFICER)
R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.V.SOHAN(CAVEATOR)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
OP(C) NO.238/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
P1:- COPY OF O.S.NO.891 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT
KODUNGALLUR FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
P2:-COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION IA.2112 OF 2008 DATED 23.11.2008.
P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.9.2010 IN I.A.2112 OF 2008.
P4:-COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA.NO.43 OF 2010 OF THE SOBRDINATE JUDGE'S
COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 10.1.2011.
P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.3.2010 IN I.A.NO.463 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, KODUNGALLUR.
P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.11846 OF 2010 DATED 7.4.2010.
P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2011 IN I.A.NO.6756 OF 2011.
P7(A):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 16.5.2011 CONVENED FOR
CONSULATATION WITH PARENTS ASSOCIATION.
P8-COPY OF I.A.NO.7873 OF 2011 DATED 25.5.2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
BEFORE THIS COURT.
P9:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN I.A.7873 OF 2011
DATED 6.6.2011.
P10:-COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN
I.A.7873 OF 2011 DATED 9.6.2011.
P11:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.6.2011 IN OP(C)342 OF 2011.
P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.7.2011 IN I.A.NO.1470 OF 2011 IN O.S.891 OF 2009
ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KODUNGALLUR.
P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.1.2012 IN CMA.NO.53 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF
THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.
P14:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF CBSE AFFILIATION BYE LAWS
P15:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF CBSE DTD 29.7.2009.
P16:- COPY OF THE HOLIDAY CIRCULAR DTD. 24.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
SCHOOL.
tss
OP(C) NO.238/2012
P17:- COPY OF THE HOLIDAY CIRCULAR DTD. 14.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
SCHOOL.
P18:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 26.1.2012 RECEIVED BY THE PARENTS
ASSOCIATION.
P19:- THE EXCERPTS OF THE AFFILIATION BYE LAW.
P20:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ASBESTOS ROOFING OF THE MAIN SCHOOL
BUILDING.
P21:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION DT.D 20.9.2011.
P22:- COPY OF THE[ PRINTOUT OF GRIEVANCE STATUS OF THE CM'S PUBLIC
GRIEVANCE CELL.
P23:- COPY OF THE CBSE CIRCULAR DTD. 18.10.2010, REGARDING THE SAFETY OF
SCHOOL BUILDING.
P24:- COPY OF THE SHOWING THE PATHETIC CONDITINS OF TOILETS IN THE
SCHOOLS.
P25:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 30.11.2011 RECEIVED FROM EDATHIRUTHY
GRAMA PANCHAYAT UNDER RTI ACT.
P26:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 26.1.2012 RECEIVED BY THE PARENTS
ASSOCIATION REGARDING THE HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION SHOWING TO THE
STUDENTS.
P27:- COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DTD 29.1.2012 FOWARDED BY THE PARENTS
ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATHILAKOM.
P28:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BOARD AND INAGURATION OF THE
ALPHONS KANNANTHANAM ACADEMY FOR CAREER EXECLLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
(ACE) A PRIVATE INSTITUTE.
P29:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SALE OF UNIFORMS, BOOKS AND
BAGS.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
R1(a):- COPY OF THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2010-2011 AND 2011-
2012 IN TRICHUR DISTRICT.
R1(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER EXTENDING THE AFFILIATION BY THE CBSE BOARD DT.
5.3.2010.
tss
OP(C) NO. 238/2012
R1(c):- COPY OF THE VENUE ALLOTMENT LETTER DTD. 18.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE CBSE
BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDUCT OF NATIONAL VOLLEY BALL CHAMPIONSHIP
AT THE RESPONDENT'S SCHOOL.
R1(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 17 SCHOOLS AT NATIONAL LEVEL
BY THE CBSE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDUCT OF THE SPORTS GAMES
EVENTS DTD. 26.8.2011.
R1(e):- COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT APPEARED IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DTD.
6.12.2011.
R1(f):- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORTED IN MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 10.12.2011 WITH
RESPECT TO THE NATIONAL VOLLEY BALL CBSE GAMES.
R1(g):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FORWARDED BY THE CBSE BOARD DTD. 9.8.2011.
R1(h):- COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE CBSE BOARD
DT.D 1.9.2011.
R1(i):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SALARY AND WAGES PAID FOR THE MONTH OF
DECEMBER 2011.
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
tss
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
O.P(C).No.238 of 2012
---------------------------------------
Dated this 02nd day of February, 2012
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are the parents of some of the students of S.N.Vidhya Bhavan, Chandrappinny (for short, "the school") run by respondents 1 to 4 and functioning under the 5th respondent. They filed O.S.No.891 of 2009 in the Munsiff's Court, Kodungallur for a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondents 1 to 4 enhancing the fee structure without consulting the parent-teacher's association (for short, "the PTA"). They alleged that there was no such consultation and that the infrastructure facilities provided in the school are not such that a revision of the fee structure is justified and permissible. Petitioners filed I.A.No.1196 of 2008 for an order of temporary injunction to restrain respondents 1 to 4 from revising the fee structure during the academic year, 2011-2012. Learned Munsiff initially passed an order of status quo. Later, an order was passed injuncting respondents 1 to 4 from collecting enhanced fee as per enhanced fee structure published by respondents 1 to
4. Respondents unsuccessfully challenged that order in C.M.A.No.43 of 2010. The trial and appellate courts took the O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 2 :- view that revision of the fee structure is without consulting representatives of parents of the students. In the meantime, petitioners filed I.A.No.463 of 2010 alleging violation of order of injunction passed on I.A.No.1196 of 2008. Learned Munsiff directed respondents not to withhold the results of any student or expel any of them from the school until disposal of the application. Respondents challenged that order in W.P(C). No.11846 of 2010. This Court directed petitioners to pay fee at the pre-revised rate. In the meantime respondents 1 to 4 challenged judgment in C.M.A.No.43 of 2010 in O.P(C).No.342 of 2011. In that writ petition, respondents 1 to 4 filed I.A.No.6756 of 2011 seeking a direction to nominate two representatives of the parents and specifying a date to consult them in the matter of revision of fee structure. This Court directed petitioners to intimate the management names of office bearers of the P.T.A and to call five of such office bearers for consultation. On 16.05.2011 a meeting was held but, no consensus could be reached. The representatives of parents objected to increase of fee upto 135%. They suggested increase of 15% from the existing rate. Respondents 1 to 4 filed I.A.No.7873 of 2011 in O.P(C).No.342 of 2011 reporting that 'consultation' is over and they be allowed to enhance the fee as per the revised fee O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 3 :- structure. This Court directed the trial court to decide that question (obviously under Rule 4 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") and transmitted I.A.No.7873 of 2011 to the trial court for a decision. The trial court, on receipt of the said application renumbered it as I.A.No.1470 of 2011. That application was allowed by Ext.P12, order and respondents 1 to 4 were allowed to collect enhanced fee as per the enhanced fee structure. Challenging that order, petitioners filed C.M.A.No.53 of 2011. Learned Sub Judge has dismissed the appeal by Ext.P13, judgment against which this original petition is filed. Ext.P12, order and Ext.P13, judgment are under challenge.
2. It is contended by learned Senior Advocate for petitioners that Exts.P12 and 13 order/judgment of the courts below are patently erroneous. It overlooks the relevant rules of Ext.P15, bye-law of the school and in particular, Rule 11. It is argued that as per subrule (3) of Rule 11, there is an embargo against revision of fee during 'mid session' but in this case the revision was made during mid session. It is further contended that as per subrule (1) of Rule 11 of Ext.P15, bye-law the fee charges should be commensurate with the infrastructures provided in the school. Learned Senior Advocate has invited my O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 4 :- attention to the various documents produced to show that the revision was made during mid session and that school run by respondents 1 to 4 does not have even the minimum required infrastructures as required by the 5th respondent. It is contended that the school is not having sufficient toilets, the roof of the school is constructed with asbestos sheets which is not only permitted but is injurious to the health of students and that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the judgment in W.P (C).No.483 of 2004 conveyed to respondents 1 to 4 by the 5th respondent have not been complied. It is contended by learned Senior Advocate that the school has not even obtained a fitness certificate from the appropriate authorities and in the circumstance, this Court has to find that the school is not having infrastructures as required under Ext.P15, bye-law and hence revision of the fee is neither legal, nor proper.
3. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 contended that no such argument was advanced either in the trial court or in the appellate court and that there was also no contention that there was any illegality in respondents 1 to 4 revising the fee structure. The only contention raised was regarding 'consultation' of representatives of the P.T.A which requirement has been complied as revealed by Ext.P7(a). It is contended that O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 5 :- various records produced by respondents 1 to 4 would show that it is with the satisfaction of availability of infrastructure that the 5th respondent has extended recognition of the school for a further period. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the expense which the school is incurring for payment of salary to its staff is in excess of the fee that could be collected even as per the revised fee structure and if the school is not allowed to collect the revised fee its functioning will come to a stand still. According to the learned counsel there is no circumstance justifying this Court to interfere, in exercise of its correctional power under Art.227 of the Constitution.
4. The order passed by the learned Munsiff is one coming under Rule 4 of Order XXXXI of the Code. Taking note of changed circumstances learned Munsiff has vacated the order of injunction granted as per order on I.A.No.1196 of 2008. It would appear from Exts.P12 and P13, order/judgment of the courts below that the argument advanced on behalf of petitioners in those Courts is regarding proper 'consultation' of the representatives of parents of the students. But, I find some averments in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the school is lacking in necessary developments. Therefore, the argument based on that cannot be said to be out of place even if raised in this Court. O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 6 :-
5. Subrule (1) of Rule 11 of Ext.P15, bye-law states that the fee charges should be commensurate with the facilities provided in the institution. Sub rule (3) states that the unaided schools should consult parents through parents' representatives before revising the fees and that the fee should not be revised during 'mid session'.
6. The appellate court in Ext.P13, judgment has made certain observations in paragraph 22 and 25. In paragraph 22 of Ext.P13, judgment it is stated that petitioners raised contention that they are not satisfied with the facilities available as is seen from the minutes of meeting marked as Ext.P23 (Ext.P7(a) in this proceeding) but, one fails to understand the reason for appellants to continue education of their students in the same school if they are not satisfied with the facilities provided.
7. I am not very much impressed by the said reasoning of the appellate court. It is not as if a student or his parent, in case fee is revised as against the existing law and rules, is not entitled to challenge it and at the same time continue study in the school. But, question still arises whether Exts.P12 and P13, order/judgment requires interference and in exercise of power under Art.227 of the Constituion.
8. I have referred to Rule 11 of Ext.P15, bye-law. So far O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 7 :- as 'consultation' of the representatives of parents is concerned, Ext.P7(a) shows that representatives of parents were 'consulted'. True, they were not agreeable to the revision of fee structure as proposed by respondents 1 to 4. The expression 'to consult' implies a conference of two or more persons or the impact of two or more minds brought about in respect of a topic with a view to evolve a correct or atleast a satisfactory solution (See P.Rama Natha Iyer's Law Lexicon, Page 396) In the shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the expression "to consult" is given the meaning "to ask advise of, seek counsel from". Going by Ext.P7(a), I am inclined to think, prima facie, that there was consultation of representatives of the parents by respondents 1 to 4 in the matter of revision of fee structure.
9. Then the next question is whether revision of the fee structure is during 'mid session' thereby violating Rule 11(3) of Ext.P15, bye-law. Learned Senior Advocate has invited my attention to Ext.P10, dated 27.05.2011 the revised fee structure. My attention is also drawn to Exts.P16 and P17 filed along with the reply affidavit. In Ext.P16 which is for the academic year, 2010-2011 it is stated as item No.3 that all payments of school fees/bus fees shall be made at the cash counter or before 29.03.2010 and as item No.4, that parents who are planning to O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 8 :- shift their children on account of transfer or other reasons should apply for Transfer Certificates on or before 31.03.2010. Ext.P17, is a similar circular issued by the school authorities on 14.03.2010 for the academic year, 2011-2012 where the dates above mentioned are 21.03.2011 and 31.03.2011, respectively for the purposes which I have stated from Ext.P16. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the above would show that for the academic year, 2011-2012 all payments of school fees/bus fees were to be made on or before 21.03.2011 while Ext.P10, is dated 27.05.2011 and after the academic year has commenced. That according to learned Senior Advocate, violates subrule (3) of Rule 11 of Ext.P15, bye-law.
10. In response learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 has pointed out from Ext.P9, a notice published by the school authorities in a vernacular daily that the said notice was published on 27.05.2011 as regards the revised fee structure. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the academic year commences from the first of June (of the year) and that is revealed from Exts.P16 and P17, as well. In Ext.P17, it is stated that the school will reopen for the academic year (2011-2012) on 1st June, 2011. The direction in Ext.P17, item No.3 for payment of school fees/bus fees on or before 21.03.2011 according to the O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 9 :- learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 is as regards the fee payable during the academic year 2010-2011.
11. Prima facie, I am inclined to accept that argument. For, it is stated in Ext.P17 that the school is to reopen for the academic year, 2011-2012 on 1st June 2011. Item No.3 of Ext.P17 states about payments of school fees/bus fees to be made on or before 21.03.2011. Item No.4 deals with the request for transfer certificates to be made on or before 31.03.2011. Prima facie I am inclined to think that the request for transfer certificates is with respect to the academic year, 2010-2011, to be made on or before 31.03.2011. It appears to me prima facie, that the direction to pay all school fee/bus fee on or before 31.03.2011 is of the academic year, 2010-2011 since the new academic year would commence on 1st of June, 2011.
12. Exts.P9 and P10 show that the fee structure was published on 27.05.2011 for the information of students and their parents while the academic year commenced only on 1st of June 2011. It is on account of the order of injunction issued by the learned Munsiff that the fee structure could not be revised. Therefore prima facie I am unable to accept the contention that the revision of fee is during 'mid session'.
13. Then the next question is whether revision of fee is O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 10 :- commensurate with the facilities provided by the institution?. I stated that there are some averments in paragraph 5 of the plaint that infrastructure facilities provided by the school authorities are not sufficient but, details of the lack of infrastructure as now presented before me are not available in the plaint. My attention is drawn to Ext.P20, photographs to show that roof of the school is made of asbestos sheets. Reference is made by the learned Senior Advocate to Ext.P23 which is a circular dated 18.10.2010 issued by the 5th respondent where it is stated that as per judgment of the supreme Court in W.P(C).No.483 of 2004 the Government and private schools are to conform to the directions stated therein such as the school building is safe and secure for every angle, it is constructed according to the safety norms incorporated in the National Building Code of India, that all existing Government and private schools shall install fire extinguishing equipments within a period of six months, that the school buildings be kept free from inflammable and toxic material and that evaluation of structural aspect of the school building may be carried out periodically strictly following the National Building Code and necessary training be imparted to the staff and other officials of the school to use fire extinguishing equipments. Reference is also made by learned Senior Advocate O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 11 :- on Ext.P25 dated 30.11.2011. That is a copy of letter issued by the Assistant Engineer, N.S.G.D, Edathiruthy Gramapanchayath stating that the school in question has not obtained a fitness certificate.
14. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 that it is only one hall in the school building which has a roofing with asbestos sheet and for that also, seiling is provided underneath the sheets. It is submitted that the fitness certificate stated in Ext.P13 is not required so far as C.B.S.E affiliated schools are concerned. Those statements are contradicted by learned Senior Advocate for petitioners.
15. Ext.R1(b) is a letter dated 05.03.2010 from the 5th respondent and addressed to the second respondent where it is stated that the application dated 24.02.2009 preferred by the second respondent for extension of provisional affiliation of the school beyond 31.03.2010 was considered and second respondent was informed that sanction is accorded for provisional affiliation of the school with the 5th respondent for five years with effect from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2015 and that the sanction is subject to the fulfillment of conditions stated therein which of course do not refer to any infrastructure. It is also pointed out from Ext.R1(c) that the C.B.S.E has selected the O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 12 :- school of respondents 1 to 4 as the venue for the conduct of National Volleyball Championship for 2011-2012. It is submitted by learned counsel that 97 schools from all over India were selected for the tournament and it was successfully conducted in the premises of the school. My attention is drawn to Exts.R1(e) and R1(f), the news items regarding the successful conduct of tournament in the school. Ext.R1(g) is yet another communication dated 09/011.08.2011 from the 5th respondent, to the Manager of the school regarding complaints from the first petitioner and others dated 04.07.2011, 06.07.2011, 19.07.2011 and 03.08.2011. In Ext.R1(g), the 5th respondent wanted comments of the Manager of the school and the factual position report duly supported with documentary evidences in answer to the complaints referred to in Ext.R1(g). In answer to that, Ext.R1(h), report was given by the authorities concerned referring to the facilities which the school has provided.
16. So far as the contention regarding lack of infrastructure is concerned, I am inclined to think that at this stage it is not proper for this Court, particularly in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution to enter a finding either way. For, it requires evidence to decide that question. Therefore, I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to hold O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 13 :- that there is lack of infrastructure facilities in the school. I hasten to add that it is a matter which the trial court has to decide after trial of the case if it arises from the pleadings. Rule 4 of Order XXXIX of the Code enables the Court, when an order of injunction is passed after hearing the parties, to discharge, vary or set aside an order of injunction when such discharge, variation or setting aside is necessitated by a change in the circumstances or the Court is satisfied that the order of injunction caused undue hardship to the party asking for discharge, variation or setting aside of the order.
17. My attention is drawn to Ext.R1(a) to contend that in other schools which according to learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 are situated nearby, the fee structure imposed is higher than the revised fee structure of the school of respondents 1 to 4. No doubt, petitioners have an answer to that, those schools are having more infrastructure facilities than the school of respondents 1 to 4.
18. Ext.R1(i) is the copy of statement of monthly salary to the staff (teaching and non teaching) for the month of December 2011. It is seen from Ext.R1(i) that the salary paid to the 145 teaching staff and 49 non teaching staff is `.19,46,510/- (for the month of December 2011) while the total amount which could be O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 14 :- collected as per the revised fee structure is `.19,22,150/-. In other words, prima facie it appears to me that the fee to be collected as per revised fee structure falls short of the expense which the school authorities had to incurred for payment of salary to its staff. In that view of the matter I am inclined to think that the order of injunction causes hardship to the respondents 1 to 4. There is a change in the circumstance as representatives of the P.T.A have been consulted for the revision of fee as Ext.P7(a) prima facie show. I also notice that at this stage it cannot be said that the order causes any irreparable injury to the petitioners. If at all ultimately the trial court decides the suit in favour of petitioners, it is within its power to order refund of the excess fee collected at the revised rate. In that view of the matter I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order/judgment. I must also bear in mind the scope for interference by this Court while exercising correctional jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution. It is not as if the power under Art.227 of the Constitution is to be exercised to correct any and every error (if at all there be) committed by the subordinate courts. In the absence of any perverse finding or patent irregularity or illegality it is not possible to exercise that power. I make it clear that contentious issues are to be decided O.P(C).No.238 of 2012 -: 15 :- after trial of the suit and that revision of fee structure and its collection shall be subject to the result of the suit.
19. Having regard to the various contentions which parties have raised, learned Munsiff is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit untrammelled by the findings contained in Exts.P12 and P13, order/judgment or any observation made by this Court on the merit of the case.
With the above observation this original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-
/True Copy/ P.A to Judge