Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: school fees in P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu vs Federation Of Association Of on 5 October, 2010Matching Fragments
2. Though elaborate submissions have been made by the learned Senior counsels for the schools, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned Senior counsels appearing for the parents and students, the issue which has to be decided in these appeals lies in a narrow campus.
3. The Tamil Nadu Government enacted a law to provide for regulating the collection of fees by school in the State of Tamil Nadu termed as the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and also framed the rules there under.
6. Even prior to the challenge to the validity of the Act, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.320 School Education Department, dated 07.12.2009, constituted the committee under the Chairmanship of a Retired Judge of this Court and the committee prepared a questionnaire and circulated to 10934 private schools through Chief Educational Officer. It is stated that 10233 school responded and submitted filled in questionnaire forms. Thereafter, the committee appears to have sent individual orders to all the schools, which have submitted their questionnaire form, determining the fee, by order dated 07.05.2010. On receipt of such fee determination orders about 6400 schools have submitted their objections under Section 6 (3) of the Act, objecting to the determination of the fee fixed by the committee. The committee also issued a press release on 11.08.2010 stating that the committee has received 6400 representations from the schools stating that the fee fixed by the committee is less and they have sought for revision. Therefore, it is considered by the committee that the fee may be fixed after personally inspecting the schools and assessing the quality and other matters and this exercise may take some time and the revised fee fixed, after re-inspection may be implemented from the academic year 2011-12 and so far as the current academic year 2010-11, the fee already been fixed by the committee will be in force. This press release and the orders passed by the committee were questioned in a batch of writ petitions, and these writ petitions came to be filed in August 2010. It appears that the State has not filed counter affidavits in the writ petitions. In the miscellaneous petitions, the writ petitioners prayed for stay of the operation of the fee fixation committee and the press release for an order of injunction to restrain the State from implementing the fee fixed by the committee and for interim direction to collect the fee as proposed by the school before the order of the fee fixation committee.
What then should be done pending decision of the Committee ?
20. Learned single Judge has not correctly interpreted and appreciated the provisions of Section 3 and 7 of the Act. In paragraph 15 of the order, the learned Judge observed as under:-
15. In the considered view of this Court, the combined reading of the definitions of Sections 2(j) and 7(1) to 7(3) of the Act would considerably support the view expressed on the petitioners side that the committee is only to verify whether the fee collected commensurate with the facilities provided and if it is found to be exorbitant in nature, then the power of the Committee is to recommend CBSE for disaffiliation of the schools. It is to be noted herein that the Act while dealing with the power and functions of the committee under Section 7(1) proceeds to say that the committee shall determine the fee structure to be collected by the private schools and as per Section 7(2), the Committee has the power to require each private schools to place the proposed fee structure before the Committee and then to approve the fee structure or determine the fee which can be charged by the private schools. Whereas Section 7(3) proceeds to say while dealing with the power of the Committee in the matter of verification of fee structure collected by the schools affiliated to CBSE that the Committee has the power to verify whether the fee collected commensurate with the facilities provided by the schools and if there is collection of any excess fee recommends to CBSE for disaffiliation of the schools. If the intention of the legislature is to empower the Committee to determine the fee structure of its own for CBSE schools then there is no necessity for introducing Section 7(3) which separately deals with the power of the Committee in so far as the CBSE Schools are concerned. Unlike Section 7(2), under Section 7(3), no power is given to the Committee to determine the fee structure in the event of the proposed fee structure submitted by the schools is not approved by the Committee. Thus, the plain reading of the provisions of law would at this stage lead to a reasonable doubt as to whether the Committee has any power to determine the fee structure of its own and to enforce the same against CBSE Schools. Even assuming it to be accepted that one such power is available to the Committee, the next aspect to be seen is as to whether the proposed fee structure is made in adherence to the statutory requirements and can be validly enforced against the petitioners herein as in the case of the other petitioners.
(M.J.E.,C J) (T.S.S.,J.) 05.10.2010 Index :Yes Internet:Yes Rpa/pbn/sm Copy to:- 1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. School Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The Private Schools fee Determination Committee Rep. by its Member Secretary, PTA Building, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006. THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUTICE and T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ---------------------------------------- Rpa/pbn/sm Pre-Delivery Judgment in W.A.Nos.2035, 2039 & 2040 of 2010 Office to Note:- Issue today. 05.10.2010.