Madras High Court
Leo Matriculation Higher Secondary ... vs The Chair Person on 8 February, 2013
Author: R.Banumathi
Bench: R.Banumathi, K.K.Sasidharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.02.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN Writ Petition No.9459 of 2012 Leo Matriculation Higher Secondary School, rep. by its Executive Secretary Dr.G.Velmurugan, No.1513-E, Anna Nagar Western Extension, Chennai-600 101. ... Petitioner. vs. 1.The Chair Person, Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, PTA Buildings, DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006. 2.Director of Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools, Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The Joint Director of Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 4.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Manavalan Nagar, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or appropriate order calling for the records of the 1st Respondent dated 27.3.2012 directing the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to initiate action against the Petitioner school for the refund of excess fee alleged to have been collected and consequential proceedings dated 28.3.2012 of 3rd Respondent vide Na.Ka.No.4001/A4/2011 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Nagarajan For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi Addl. Government Pleader (Edn.) ORDER
R.BANUMATHI,J Whether the impugned order directing refund of excess fee collected by the Writ Petitioner school is without any basis and whether there was violation of principles of natural justice are the points falling for our consideration in this Writ Petition.
2. Writ Petitioner school is an unaided private school having Matriculation and Higher Secondary and about 2300 students are studying from Pre KG to XII standard. On 07.5.2010, Justice K.Govindarajan Committee determined the fee under Section 6(1) of Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 [Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009]. Not satisfied by the fee structure, Writ Petitioner school filed objections under Section 6(3) of the Act. As per the order of First Bench in P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu v. Federation of Association of Private Schools in Tamil Nadu (2010 (5) CTC 721), all the matters were remitted back to the Committee directing the Committee to consider the objections of 6400 Institutions by affording them opportunity of personal hearing to enable them to submit further materials for consideration of the Committee and thereafter pass individual orders by considering all such materials. On 03.6.2011, Justice K.Raviraja Pandian Committee re-fixed the fee which excluded the fee for imparting education through technology like smart classes etc. and books, note books, uniforms and transportation facilities. Challenging the said order dated 03.6.2011, Writ Petitioner school filed W.P.No.19684 of 2011. By the common judgment dated 03.5.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Committee and remitted all the matters back to the Committee to re-determine the fee structure in accordance with the directions given in the judgment.
3. On 03.8.2011, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Thiruvallur directed the Principal of the Writ Petitioner school to attend an enquiry in the office of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools on 10.8.2011 on the complaint that the Writ Petitioner school has collected excess fee over and above the fee fixed by the Committee. On 10.8.2011, Writ Petitioner school attended the enquiry. Writ Petitioner school submitted a detailed explanation (11.08.2011) denying collection of excess fee. Writ Petitioner school also furnished particulars regarding collection of fees, fee for smart class etc.
4. Again on 19.01.2012, the Joint Inspector of Matriculation Schools visited the Writ Petitioner school and verified the fee collection records and also enquired the students. Complaints were received from the parents with respect to collection of excess fee, other than the tuition fee such as smart class fee etc. are collected by the Writ Petitioner school. On 07.2.2012, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Thiruvallur held enquiry on the complaint of collection of excess fee. At the time of enquiry, formates were issued to the Writ Petitioner school to assess the exact quantum of fees collected. On the same day, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools submitted a report to the Committee with a finding that Writ Petitioner school collected excess fees.
5. Based on the enquiry conducted by the 4th Respondent, enquiry report was submitted to the Committee in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7(1) of the Act. On notice, Writ Petitioner school appeared before the Committee on 20.2.2012 and submitted an explanation. Based on the enquiry and also the report of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, the Committee passed an order on 27.3.2012 holding that Writ Petitioner school had collected excess fees and the excess fee so collected was communicated in the impugned order. The order of Committee dated 27.3.2012 reads as follows:-
"However it was pointed out that in pursuance of a letter dated Nil of Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Thiruvalur who enquired on 07.02.2012 a report was sent on 23.2.2012 by the DMS to this Committee, as per which it is under stood that there was excess fee collected in the following manner ................
In the mean time there was urgent complaint made in person by the parents that some students were prevented from writing examination and therefore we have sent a letter dated 17.03.2012 to the DMS asking them to interfere and see that no one is prevented from writing examination. That has been successfully done by the supervision of Special Officer of this Committee.
Now that the above excess fee was pointed in the report annexed to the DMS letter dated 23.2.2012, in order to enable the Competent Authority to get refund and pay it to the concerned parents, this Committee has directed the parents to fill up the above said tabular column with student name and class and the excess fee collected individually from the concerned. The object is to make things easier to refund the excess fee directly to the concerned parents.
But as number of students are said to be more than 2000, the parents could not readily furnish the tabular column with details of students name and class.
Therefore, in order to avoid delay, it is recommended that Director of Matriculation Schools may direct Mr.A.Karuppusamy, Joint Director of Matriculation Schools to implement the above said report of Inspector of Matriculation Schools and to collect the excess fee from the said school after giving opportunity to both sides and refund to the concerned parents and report the matter to this Committee as early as possible. Suitable further action according to law as deemed fit may also be taken."
6. Assailing the impugned order, Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for Writ Petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed based on the alleged report submitted by the Inspector of Matriculation Schools. But the said report was not communicated to the Writ Petitioner school nor they were directed to submit a reply. It was contended that copy of the said report was not furnished and the impugned order of the Committee dated 27.3.2012 was also not communicated and the Writ Petitioner school came to know about the impugned order only through the Proceedings of the Joint Director of Matriculation Schools and on the request of the Writ Petitioner school, copy of the impugned order was furnished to them only on 2.4.2012 and there is violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that even though order states a specific format is there to furnish information for collection of excess fee, even without getting any filled forms from any parent, the Committee simply stated that number of students are more than 2000 and to avoid delay, recommended the 2nd Respondent to implement the order immediately. It was mainly contended that only the Committee can enquire whether any excess fee was collected and while so, the Committee was not justified in delegating the power to Inspector of Matriculation Schools/Director of Matriculation Schools and passing order based on the said report is vitiated.
7. Refuting the contentions, Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that report was submitted based on the enquiry conducted by the 4th Respondent and the enquiry report was submitted to the Chairman, Private Schools Fee Determination Committee in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7(1) of the Act and the 1st Respondent called for enquiry and basing on the enquiry, 1st Respondent has arrived at a conclusion that the Writ Petitioner school collected excess fee and hence passed orders to refund the excess fee, so collected by the school. Drawing our attention to the impugned order, learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted since complaints were made by the parents that some of the students were prevented from writing examination, the Committee sent a letter dated 17.3.2012 to the Director of Matriculation Schools asking them to interfere and see that no one is prevented from writing the examination and this cannot be said to be excessive delegation of authority to the Director of Matriculation Schools.
8. The correctness of the direction to the Director of Matriculation Schools/Joint Director of Matriculation Schools to conduct enquiry on the complaint that Writ Petitioner school has collected excess fee and whether the impugned order of the Committee is vitiated are the points falling for consideration.
9. Re.contention: Order is vitiated as it was passed unilaterally:- Section 5 of the Act refers to the Constitution of Committee. As per Section 5(1) of the Act, the functions of the Committee is for the purpose of determination of the fee for admission to any standard or course of study in private schools. As per Section 5(2) of the Act, the Committee shall consist of a retired High Court Judge nominated by the Government and other Ex.Officio members viz., Director of School Education, Director of Matriculation Schools, Director of Elementary Education, Joint Chief Engineer (Buildings), Public Works Department and Additional Secretary to Government, School Education Department (Ex.Officio Member Secretary).
10. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner contended that when the statutory requirement of the Committee consists by five Members, the Chairperson cannot unilaterally pass an order directing to implement the report of Inspector of Matriculation Schools and to refund the excess fee to the concerned parents and the order is vitiated. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision in 2011 (6) CTC 28 (P.Balamurugan v. District Level Vigilance (Community Verification) Committee, Salem, rep. by its Chairman & District Collector, Salem and another).
11. The above decision is in respect of issuance of Community Certificate, which was issued by the Sub Collector. The decision concerning with issuance of Community Certificate is to be passed only by the District Collector. Since the order was passed by the Sub Collector who was not competent to issue Community Certificate, the Division Bench of this Court quashed the order on the ground that the Committee was not properly comprised. The above decision is not applicable to the case on hand. As per Section 5(5) of the Act, "no act or proceeding of the Committee shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy in or any defect in the constitution of the Committee".
12. Act 22 of 2009 was enacted with an object to provide for the regulation of collection of fee in private unaided schools. The Chairperson of the Committee is a retired High Court Judge. The Director of Elementary Education and other officials are Ex.Officio members. Taking into account the object of the Act and the nature of the work of the Committee and the interest of the students, the procedure to be followed is prescribed only to facilitate smooth functioning of the Committee as well as to act in swift in the welfare of the students.
13. The petitioner has raised a basic question with regard to the authority of the Chair Person of the Private School Fee Determination Committee to pass the impugned order dated 27 March 2012 without the association of other members of the Statutory Committee.
14. Section 5(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009 provides for the composition of Committee for the purpose of determination of Fee. Except the Chairperson, all the other five members are ex-officio members. The Chairman, who is a retired Judge of the High Court, acts as a full time Chairman of the Committee. It is only by virtue of office, the other Government Officials are made members of the committee.
15. The question here is, in the absence of association of other members of the Committee, whether the Chairperson was correct in taking a decision on 27 March 2012, which was the basis for taking further action in the matter.
16. The substantial question raised by the petitioner has to be decided in the factual background of the subject case. The report submitted by the Inspector of Matriculation School on the basis of the enquiry conducted on 7 February 2012 contained startling revelations about the irregularities committed by the petitioner in the matter of collection of fee from students, over and above the fees prescribed by the statutory committee. The Director of Matriculation School, on the basis of the inputs received from the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, on the basis of the enquiry conducted on 7 February 2012, submitted a comprehensive report to the Fee Determination Committee. While the committee was in the process of considering the said report dated 23 February 2012, the office of the private fee determination committee received specific complaints that some of the students were prevented from writing the examination. Since the situation warrants immediate action, the Chairperson intervened in the matter, ultimately resulting in passing the impugned order. It was only the urgent necessity of students and to ensure that the students were not prevented from writing examinations, which made the Chairperson to act swiftly and with a sense of urgency. It was not possible for the Chairperson to ascertain the convenience of other ex-officio members who were busy with their routine work, to convene the meeting and to take a decision in an urgent matter like this.
17. The Courts have time and again held that the Doctrine of Necessity is an exception even to the rule that no man should be a Judge in his own cause. In case it is made out urgent orders have to be passed and there was no time to convene the committee, the same will be a reasonable ground to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity.
18. The Supreme Court in J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa, (1984) 4 SCC 103, referred to the decision of Court of appeal in The Judges v. Attorney-General for Saskatchewan [1937 53 TLR 464] and explained the scope of the Doctrine of Necessity.
"12. There is, however, an exception to the above rule that no man shall be a judge in his own cause, namely, the doctrine of necessity. An adjudicator, who is subject to disqualification on the ground of bias or interest in the matter which he has to decide, may be required to adjudicate if there is no other person who is competent or authorized to adjudicate or if a quorum cannot be formed without him or if no other competent tribunal can be constituted. In such cases the principle of natural justice would have to give way to necessity for otherwise there would be no means of deciding the matter and the machinery of justice or administration would break down. Thus, in The Judges v. Attorney-General for Saskatchewan2 the Judges of the Court of Appeal were held competent to decide the question whether Judges of the Court of Appeal, of the Court of King's Bench and of the District Courts of the Province of Saskatchewan were subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act, 1932, of Saskatchewan on the ground that they were bound to act ex necessitate. The doctrine of necessity applies not only to judicial matters but also to quasi-judicial and administrative matters.
19. In Election Commission of India v. Dr Subramaniam Swamy, (1996) 4 SCC 104,, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal principles regarding the Doctrine of Necessity in the following words :-
16. We must have a clear conception of the doctrine. It is well settled that the law permits certain things to be done as a matter of necessity which it would otherwise not countenance on the touchstone of judicial propriety. Stated differently, the doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It is often invoked in cases of bias where there is no other authority or Judge to decide the issue. If the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course of justice itself and the defaulting party would benefit therefrom. Take the case of a certain taxing statute which taxes certain perquisites allowed to Judges. If the validity of such a provision is challenged who but the members of the judiciary must decide it. If all the Judges are disqualified on the plea that striking down of such a legislation would benefit them, a stalemate situation may develop. In such cases the doctrine of necessity comes into play. If the choice is between allowing a biased person to act or to stifle the action altogether, the choice must fall in favour of the former as it is the only way to promote decision-making.
20. Most recently, in Lalit Kumar Modi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India, (2011) 10 SCC 106, the Supreme Court indicated the necessity to invoke this doctrine to tide over difficult situations :-
38. The doctrine of necessity is a common law doctrine, and is applied to tide over the situations where there are difficulties. Law does not contemplate a vacuum, and a solution has to be found out rather than allowing the problem to boil over. Otherwise, as proposed by Shri Jethmalani one will have to wait for one more year for a new President to be elected, which submission cannot be accepted.
21. Since the matter was urgent and a decision was to be taken immediately in the interest and welfare of the students, the Chairperson was fully justified in passing the impugned order, by invoking the Doctrine of Necessity.
22. As stated earlier, several complaints were received from the parents stating that the Writ Petitioner school was not allowing the students to write the examination. Having regard to the urgency involved, the Writ Petitioner school is not right in contending that the Committee should have convened quorum of all the members to hear the matter. Such an argument is a farfetched one and in our considered view such an approach would defeat the objects of the Act.
23. Re.contention Order of the committee is vitiated:- Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner submitted that as per Section 7(1)(b) of the Act, on receipt of the complaint with regard to collection of excess fee, the Committee after obtaining evidence and explanation from the Management of the private school was bound to pass an order. It was contended that in deputing the Inspector of Matriculation Schools to hold enquiry, there was violation of principles of natural justice and neither copy of the complaint nor report of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools was furnished to the Writ Petitioner school and before passing the order, no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the Writ Petitioner school. It was further submitted that so far Writ Petitioner school has refunded a sum of Rs.79,47,500/-. In its reply dated 18.05.2012, Writ Petitioner school has stated that Writ Petitioner school has refunded a sum of Rs.79,47,500/- as per the orders of the Chairman, Private Schools Fee Determination Committee.
24. Section 7(1) of the Act deals with power and functions of the Committee. Section 7(1)(b) deals with power of the Committee to hear the complaint with regard to collection of fee in excess of the fee determined by the Committee or fixed by the Government. Section 7(1) (b) of the Act reads as under:-
"7. Powers and functions of the Committee. - (1) The powers and functions of the Committee shall be, -
(a) to determine the fee to be collected by private schools;
(b) to hear complaints with regard to collection of fee in excess of the fee determined by it or fixed by the Government, as the case may be. If the Committee, after obtaining the evidence and explanation from the management of the private school or aided school concerned or from the Government school, comes to the conclusion that the private school or the Government school or aided school has collected fee in excess of the fee determined by the committee or fixed by the Government, as the case may be, it shall recommend to the appropriate competent authority for the cancellation of the recognition or approval, as the case may be, of the private school or aided school or for any other course of action as it deems fit in respect of the private school or Government school or aided school."
25. The object of the Act is for regulation of collection of fee by the schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. Ofcourse under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act, the Committee has power to hear the complaints with regard to collection of fee in excess of the fee determined by the Committee or fixed by the Government. The power vested with the Committee to hear the complaints with regard to collection of excess fee does not in any way take away the powers of the Director of Matriculation Schools/Inspector of Matriculation Schools to inspect the schools. The Inspector of Matriculation Schools has every right to inspect the schools, if any complaint is received from public/parents.
26. Complaints were received from the parents that excess fee other than tuition fee was collected by the Writ Petitioner school under the pretext of smart class, I.T. enabled education etc. On such complaints received from the parents, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Thiruvallur conducted enquiry on 07.02.2012. By the communication in Na.Ka.No.152/A1/2011 dated Nil, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools sent details of enquiry report by enclosing (i) questionnaire obtained from the complainant; (ii) questionnaire obtained from the Correspondent; (iii) enquiry report of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools and (iv) details of excess fee collected. In the report (7.2.2012), the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Thiruvallur has shown the excess fee collected by the Writ Petitioner school by talubating and the differences. In the report, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools reported that the excess fee collected should be refunded to the parents. In response to the report of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Writ Petitioner school had sent filled in questionnaire on 08.2.2012. Based upon the enquiry report, the Director of Matriculation Schools sent communication Na.Ka.No.4001/A4/2011 dated 23.02.2012 to the Writ Petitioner school enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. In the said communication, the Director of Matriculation Schools stated that Writ Petitioner school is collecting excess fee.
27. In the mean time, there was an urgent complaint made in person by the parents before the Committee that some of the students were prevented from writing examination, based on which, the Committee had passed an order dated 27.03.2012 recommending that the Director of Matriculation Schools may direct the Joint Director of Matriculation Schools to implement the report of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools and to collect the excess fee from the Petitioner school after giving opportunity to both sides and refund excess fee so collected to the concerned parents and report the same to the Committee as early as possible.
28. The contention of Writ Petitioner is that the fee collected was intended for only smart classes and no enquiry was conducted by the Committee whether the fee was inclusive of smart classes. According to Writ Petitioner school, the school had collected fees other than the one fixed by the Committee only for imparting education through modern technology and through smart classes etc. as fixed by the Committee by its order dated 03.06.2011. According to Respondents, Writ Petitioner school has not come forward to state how much amount was fixed for smart classes. It is stated that Parent Teacher Association alleged that smart classes started only from 27.01.2012 by the school and that they have produced the material evidence to that effect viz., invitation card. The Additional Government Pleader contended that amount was collected prior to the commencement of smart classes and as such it cannot be said that excess fee collected was meant for smart classes.
29. Re.contention: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:- In response to the order of the Committee dated 27.3.2012, the Joint Director of Matriculation Schools inspected the Writ Petitioner school on 29.03.2012 in the presence of representative of parents and directed the school authority to refund the excess fee collected. Writ Petitioner school requested time for refund of the fee. Again the Joint Director along with the Inspector of Matriculation Schools inspected the Writ Petitioner school on 10.04.2012. A representative of the Writ Petitioner school raised an objection for allowing the representative of Parent Student Welfare Association inside the school. The school authorities had also not prepared a list for refund of the excess fee. The Joint Director of Matriculation Schools submitted a report to take action against the Writ Petitioner school on the following charges:-
(1)Writ Petitioner school collected excess fee and not implemented the order directing refund;
(2)Knowing that the Directorate of Matriculation Schools has power to enquire any Matriculation Schools, the Writ Petitioner school failed to co-operate with the enquiry initiated by the Directorate of Matriculation Schools;
(3)Writ Petitioner school Management prevented the Government Official from carrying out his official duty.
In response to the show cause notice dated 26.4.2012, Writ Petitioner school had sent its detailed reply on 04.05.2012.
30. Learned Senior Counsel for Writ Petitioner school contended that Respondents failed to furnish copy of the complaints and also the report of Inspector of Matriculation Schools and that no opportunity was given to the Writ Petitioner school. When there were number of complaints regarding swift action, the authority cannot be expected to furnish each and every details of all the complaints.
31. Pursuant to the report of 4th Respondent, 1st Respondent directed the 2nd Respondent to implement the report through the 3rd Respondent. When the order was passed by the Committee, 3rd Respondent-Joint Director of Matriculation Schools and Secretary of Parent Teacher Association were present. It is stated that onbehalf of Writ Petitioner school, its representative and their lawyer were present. According to Respondents, in view of the urgency, parties were orally directed to receive copy of the order from the Committee. It is further stated that copy of the order were received by the 3rd Respondent and Secretary of Parent Teacher Association from the 1st Respondent Committee. But the Writ Petitioner school did not receive the copy of the order and its enclosure.
32. Even though, Writ Petitioner school did not receive the copy of the order and its enclosure, it is stated that on 27.03.2012, the representative of the Writ Petitioner school and their lawyer appeared before the Committee and they were directed to meet the Director of Matriculation Schools. Thereafter, Writ Petitioner school sent a letter dated 28.03.2012 to the 3rd Respondent stating that plus two examinations are going on and that some of the Directors of the school had gone out and requesting the Joint Director to inspect the school after giving opportunity. Writ Petitioner school submitted its detailed reply on 04.05.2012. The letter (28.03.2012) sent by the Writ Petitioner school as well as the said reply (04.5.2012) would show that Writ Petitioner school was in the know of the contents of the order passed by the 1st Respondent Committee. Contention of Writ Petitioner is that they wee not aware of the contents of the order of 1st Respondent is not correct.
33. In (2005) 3 SCC 409 (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another v. S.G.Kotturappa and another), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"To what extent principles of natural justice are required to be complained with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. Principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacum. There is clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and whether there was technical infringement of the principle. Court applies principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case."
34. There is a clear distinction between the cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases, where there were mere technical infringement of the principle, Court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case. In our considered view, sufficient opportunity was given to the Writ Petitioner school. Inspite of direction, Writ Petitioner school has not complied with the direction in refunding the excess fee collected.
35. Onbehalf of Respondents, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced a comparative table showing the fee fixed by the earlier Committee by order dated 03.06.2011 and the subsequent Committee dated 24.09.2012 and that the Writ Petitioner school had collected excess fee. The comparative table produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader reads as follows:-
Class Fee fixed by the Committee headed by K.Raviraja Pandian per student (Rs.) Fee collected by the school (Rs.) Excess fee LKG-UKG 5,800/-
10,000/-
4,200/-
I V 6,800/-
11.700/-
4,900/-
VI VIII 8,300/-
14,300/-
6,000/-
IX X 9,150/-
14,300/-
5,150/-
XI XII 13,850/-
21,400/-
7,550/-
Class Fee fixed by the Committee headed by S.R.Singharavelu per student (Rs.) Fee collected by the school (Rs.) Excess fee LKG-UKG 7,000/-
10,000/-
3,000/-
I V 8,000/-
11,700/-
3,700/-
VI VIII 9,800/-
14,300/-
4,500/-
IX X 10,900/-
14,300/-
3,400/-
XI XII 16,250/-
21,400/-
5,150/-
36. Viewed from any angle, either the order passed by the earlier Committee (03.06.2011) or the order passed by the subsequent Committee (24.09.2012), we are of the view that Writ Petitioner school have collected excess fee. On being satisfied about the report filed by the Directorate of Matriculation Schools, the Committee had passed the order directing the Writ Petitioner school to refund the excess collected from the students.
37. Learned Senior Counsel for Writ Petitioner school submitted that in the reply (18.05.2012), Writ Petitioner has stated that the school had refunded a sum of Rs.79,47,500/-. But in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Thiruvallur conducted enquiry and stated that Writ Petitioner school had refunded only a sum of Rs.29,36,550/- to 733 students. It is further stated that Writ Petitioner school has been instructed to refund the excess fee to the remaining students.
38. As pointed out earlier, sufficient opportunity was given to the Writ Petitioner school. Therefore, we are of the view that the direction to refund excess fee collected by the Writ Petitioner school was based upon the complaints from the parents which is strengthened by the report of Joint Director and Inspector of Matriculation Schools and that there is no violation of principles of natural justice warranting interference and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
39. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
(R.B.I., J.) (K.K.S.,J.)
Index: Yes/No 08.02.2013
Internet:Yes/No
bbr
To
1.The Chair Person,
Private Schools Fee Determination Committee,
PTA Buildings, DPI Campus,
Chennai 600 006.
2.Director of Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools,
Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools,
DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Tamil Nadu
Matriculation Schools,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
4.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools,
Manavalan Nagar,
Thiruvallur District.
R.BANUMATHI, J
and
K.K.SASIDHARAN,J
bbr
Order in
W.P.No.9459 of 2012
08.02.2013