Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
St. Teresa'S School vs The District Consumer Redressal Forum & ... on 31 March, 2011
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
W. P. No. 8582(W) of 2010
ST. TERESA'S SCHOOL
Versus
THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM & ORS.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Dutta
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee
Mr. Argha Banerjee
Mr. Rajendra Nath Bari
For the State : Mr. K. J. Yusuf
Mr. Debasish Kar
Judgment On : March 31, 2011.
In spite of service none appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 at the time
when the application is taken up for hearing. The respondent no.1 is represented by its lawyer.
St. Teresa's School, Bolpur, in the District of Birbum is a co-education English medium school. The said school has about 1,000 students upto Class IX. The school's prayer for grant of affiliation for allowing its students to appear in the Board's Examination under ICSE Board, New Delhi is pending for considering before the I.C.S.E Board, New Delhi.
The Government of West Bengal implemented the Fifth Pay Commission in 2009. One of the conditions which is required to be fulfilled by the school authority for granting no objection by 2 the State Government in connection with its prayer for affiliation is that the school authority must undertake to pay the salary to its teaching and non-teaching staff as per the pay scale of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Government school and/or the Government aided schools. With the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission report, the salary and the pay scales of the teaching and non-teaching staff in the schools in the West Bengal has substantially been increased. The school authority had to file an undertaking before the Government of West Bengal stating that it would pay its teaching and non-teaching staff at the pay scale of the Government of West Bengal based on the recommendation of the Pay Commission. The school authority had to file such undertaking before the State Government as the State Government has decided not to issue any no objection certificate for enabling the school to get affiliation from Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi, unless the school authority submits such undertaking before the State Government. On submission of such undertaking, no objection certificate was granted by the State Government.
Under such circumstances, the school authority found that the implementation of such undertaking is practically impossible unless the tuition fees and other incidental charges of the students studying in the said school are enhanced. Accordingly, the school authority decided to hike the tuition fees and other incidental charges of its students. Majority of the guardians of its students accepted the said decision of the school authority. However, the guardians of some of its students formed a forum and challenged the decision of the school authority regarding enhancement of the tuition fees and incidental charges of its students for the academic year 2009-10, by filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Birbhum. The said complaint was registered as C.E. Case No. CC/35/O/2009.
The District Forum not only entertained the said complaint but also passed an interim order of injunction on 18th February, 2010 by restraining the school authority from enhancing the tuition fees till the disposal of the case with a rider that the students are directed to pay the 3 tuition fees at old rate including arrear if any and they will continue the same till the disposal of the case.
Subsequently, the school authority filed an application for vacating the said interim order of injunction. But the said application was rejected by the forum on 24th March, 2010. However, considering the gravity of the case and its urgency final hearing of the said case has been fixed on 31st March, 2010.
In the aforesaid context the instant writ petition has been filed by the school authority not only by challenging the legality and/or validity of the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned District Forum but also by challenging the maintainability of the said proceeding before the forum.
In fact, it is contended by the petitioner that since the dispute which was sought to be raised by the said guardians' forum does not constitute a complaint regarding a consumer dispute between the parties and further since the guardian forum is not a consumer within the meaning of the word "consumer" as defined in the said Act, such a dispute ought not to have been entertained by the District Forum. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for the quashing of the said proceeding.
In fact, in connection with the dispute relating to a disciplinary proceeding against a teacher of an education institution, a question came up for consideration before this Court, as to whether the service which is rendered by the teacher in an educational institution can be regarded as a kind of service as defined in Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in the case of Smt. N. Taneja & Anr. Vs. Calcutta District Forum & Ors. Reported in AIR 1992 Calcutta 95. In the said decision, this Hon'ble Court had the occasion to consider the definition of "consumer" and "service" given in the said Act. It was held therein that the definition of service under Section 2(o) if read with Sections 2(c)(iii), 2(d)(iii) and 2(g) of the said Act, it becomes apparent that the relationship of teacher and student of an education institution is not a service on hire because student is not such a consumer which is linked anyway with the buyer of any 4 economic goods and hire has not been linked with education, teacher and student. It was further held therein that the "contract", as referred to in Section 2(g) certainly is not the contract as defined in Section 2(o) because the very conception of contract cannot be introduced into the Consumer Protection Act, so far as education, teacher and student are considered.
This Court does not find any justification to differ from the aforesaid findings arrived at by the said single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Smt. N. Taneja & Anr. Vs. Calcutta District Forum & Ors (supra).
If that be so, then this Court has no hesitation to hold that the proceeding which was initiated before the District Forum, Suri, cannot be regarded as a complaint relating to a consumer dispute and as such the said complaint, in my view, ought not to have been entertained by the said Forum.
Thus, the said complaint case being C.F. Case No. CC/35/O/2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Birbhum, Suri, stands quashed on the ground of its entertainability alone before the said Forum and consequently the orders which were passed in the said proceeding from time to time also cannot be retained on record. Accordingly all the orders passed by the said Forum in the said proceeding also stand quashed.
The writ petition, thus, allowed.
It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the complainant from seeking appropriate reliefs in appropriate Forum in accordance with law.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) 5