Madras High Court
Mohameed Sathak Dastagir vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 November, 2012
Bench: R.Banumathi, R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.11.2012
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
Writ Petition No.13460 of 2012
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
Mohameed Sathak Dastagir
Matriculation School,
run by Mohamed Sathak Trust
by its Chairman
Dr.S.M.Hamid Abdul Quadir
Inside Collectorate Complex
Pattinamkathan-623 503
Ramanathapuram District. .. Petitioner.
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Private School Fee Determination Committee,
rep.by its Special Officer,
D.P.I. Compound,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of 2nd respondent dated 09.02.2012 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj
For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan,
Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.Sanjay Gandhi,Addl. Govt.Pleader(Edn.)
ORDER
R.SUBBIAH, J., Writ Petitioner School, which is a recognized Private School, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 09.02.2012 passed by Private School Fee Determination Committee on the ground of arbitrariness and that it is not in conformity with Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009).
2. Writ Petitioner School is run by Mohamed Sathak Trust which is a Religious Minority Trust. Petitioner school has recognition for Classes L.K.G. to X Standard and as on date 497 students are studying in the said School.
3. Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 was enacted on 07.08.2009. Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Rules, 2009 came into force on 07.12.2009. Validity of the Act and the Rules (except Section 11 of the Act and Rules 4(4) and 4(5) of the Rules) was upheld in Tamil Nadu Nursery, Matriculation and Higher Secondary Schools Association Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (2010 (4) CTC 353).
4. By G.O.(Ms) No.320, School Education Department, dated 07.12.2009, Government constituted a School Fee Determination Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice K.Govindarajan, a retired Judge of this Court and the Committee prepared questionnaire and sent the same to the private schools through the Chief Educational Officer. To the said questionnaire, the Writ Petitioner school sent its response. After considering the response, order was passed by the Fee Determination Committee fixing the fee to be collected for the years 2010-11 to 2012-13.
5. A batch of Writ Petitions came to be filed challenging the order of the Committee dated 07.05.2010 and the press release. By the order dated 14.09.2010 in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.18854 of 2010, the single Judge of this Court passed an interim order restraining the State Government from enforcing the order of Fee Fixation Committee for the academic year 2010-2011. The said order of the single Judge was challenged in W.A.Nos.2035 of 2010 etc. batch. By the order dated 05.10.2010, the First Bench of this Court disposed of the appeals in P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu Vs. Federation of Association of Private Schools in T.N. (2010 (5) CTC 721) interalia issuing directions directing the Committee to consider the objections of 6400 institutions by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the institutions to enable them to submit further materials for consideration of the Committee and thereafter pass individual orders by considering all the materials. The said order of First Bench was challenged in the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.36589 to 36591 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.12.2010.
6.Pursuant to the direction issued by the First Bench in 2010 (5) CTC 721, fresh questionnaires were sent to the schools and the Writ Petitioner school has submitted its response along with fee proposed by them and also the supporting materials. The Committee headed by Justice S.R.Singharavelu passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2012 fixing the fee structure for next three academic years i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.
7. Onbehalf of Writ Petitioner school, Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned Counsel has submitted that the Committee did not take into account the actual salary paid to teaching and non-teaching staff and the various other statutory financial commitments of the school. Learned Counsel submitted that the Committee had erroneously taken into consideration only a sum of Rs.19.20 lakhs and Rs.1.92 lakhs as the total salary for teaching and non-teaching staff members respectively; whereas the actual annual expenditure for teaching staff alone is Rs.26,57,149/- and for the non-teaching staff is Rs.20,86,185/-. Allowance for drivers is Rs.1,25,230/-. Therefore, the total salary for the teaching and non-teaching staff including allowance for the drivers is Rs.48,68,564/-. In fact, salary for the teaching and non-teaching staff has been fixed only on the basis of the Sixth Pay Commission. But the 2nd respondent Committee, without any basis and against the order of the Sixth Pay Commission, has unilaterally fixed the arbitrary salary for the teaching and non-teaching staff.
8. It was also submitted that (i) Provident Fund contribution for the entire staff for the whole year is Rs.4,13,452/-; however, the 2nd respondent Committee has taken only one month provident fund contribution of Rs.42,000/-. (ii) The actual electricity charges is Rs.2,73,339/-, whereas the 2nd respondent has fixed only Rs.2,10,000/-. (iii) When the actual water charges is Rs.49,500/-, the Committee has wrongly fixed water charges as Rs.24,000/-. (iv) The Committee has not considered the diesel consumption charges which amounts to Rs.5,9,800/-. Further, the Committee has also not given 15% for development expenses on annual fees for the development of the School. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Modern School .vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 5 SCC 583. Further, the 2nd respondent Committee has not given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner school to substantiate their claim and to prove that the fee proposed by the petitioner school is reasonable and non-profiteering.
9. Drawing our attention to the order of this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch dated 03.5.2012, learned Counsel would submit that the order passed by the Committee in respect of similarly placed schools were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the Committee for re-determining the fee and the learned Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Committee to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the guidelines issued in the said order dated 03.5.2012. However, the learned Counsel for Writ Petitioner has submitted that the present Writ Petition has been filed only on 07.05.2012 beyond the cut off date is not claiming benefit of interim arrangement granted in the earlier order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch.
10. We have heard Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General appearing along with Mr.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) for Respondents.
11. In a batch of Writ Petitions [W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch CDJ 2012 MHC 2161 : 2012 Writ Law Reporter 489], by the common order dated 03.05.2012 (one of us was a member Justice R.Banumathi), the orders passed by the Committee headed by Justice K.Raviraja Pandian were set aside and by framing certain guidelines, the matters were remitted back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh. The Writ Petitioner school is also similarly placed and therefore, the fee structure need to be re-determined in the light of those guidelines.
12. The operative portion of the order in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch in LAKSHMI MATRICULATION SCHOOL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THE SECRETARY TOGOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS, (CDJ 2012 MHC 2161 : 2012 Writ Law Reporter 489) dated 03.05.2012 reads as follows:-
"152. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders in all the writ petitions are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the School Fee Determination Committee for consideration of the matters afresh. Fee structure approval form shall be given to Writ Petitioner Schools calling upon them to produce the details and documents required to be furnished. All the Writ Petitioner Schools shall propose the fee structure afresh with fresh or additional materials/Audit statements showing the expenditure and income. The Committee shall give personal hearing to each of the Writ Petitioner Schools and also afford reasonable opportunity to all the Writ Petitioner Schools and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of December 2012.
153. In respect of unaided Non-Minority Educational Institutions, the School Fee Determination Committee shall keep in view the guidelines in Para Nos.88 to 117 and 152 of this order. For the reasons stated in Para Nos.109 and 110, all the unaided Non-Minority Educational Institutions shall be entitled to surplus for development i.e., Village and Town Panchayats at 10%; Municipalities and District Headquarters at 12=% and Corporations at 15%.
154. For the reasons stated in Para No.111, for Infrastructure Grading, there shall be an increase in fee - 7=% to 10% depending on the availability of the infrastructure in the Schools."
Considering the grounds raised in the Writ Petition, the earlier order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch (CDJ 2012 MHC 2161 : 2012 Writ Law Reporter 489) is applicable to the Writ Petitioner school also and setting aside the impugned order, this Writ Petition is remitted back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh, in the light of the guidelines in the said Order dated 03.05.2012.
12. In the result, the impugned order dated 09.02.2012 passed by Private Schools Fee Determination Committee is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the earlier order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch (CDJ 2012 MHC 2161 : 2012 Writ Law Reporter 489).
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, there is no order as to costs.
gl To
1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Special Officer, Private School Fee Determination Committee, D.P.I. Compound, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006