Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)
Rumana Through Father Mr Hemant And Ors vs Bluebells International School ... on 9 October, 2025
cites
Section 17 in The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh vs Union Of India And Others on 30 October, 1998
15. On behalf of the appellants, reliance has also been placed on Delhi
Abibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India, 1998 SCC OnLine Del 809,
Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 46,
Unaided Private Schools of Delhi v. Director of Education, (2009) 10 SCC
1, and Union of India v. Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust, (2018) 8 SCC
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002
Both sides relied upon various passages from the
majority judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case [(2002) 8 SCC 481]
. In view of rival submissions, four questions were formulated. We are
concerned with the first question, namely, whether the educational
institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure. It was held that
there could be no rigid fee structure. Each institute must have freedom
to fix its own fee structure, after taking into account the need to
generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary
for the benefit of the students. They must be able to generate surplus
which must be used for betterment and growth of that educational
institution. The fee structure must be fixed keeping in mind the
infrastructure and facilities available, investment made, salaries paid
to teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or betterment of
institution subject to two restrictions, namely, non- profiteering and
non-charging of capitation fees. It was held that surplus/profit can be
generated but they shall be used for the benefit of that educational
institution. It was held that profits/surplus cannot be diverted for any
other use or purposes and cannot be used for personal gains or for
LPA 213/2024, LPA 316/2024 & LPA 669/2024 Page 12 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:09.10.2025
17:27:06
other business or enterprise. The Court noticed that there were
various statutes/regulations which governed the fixation of fee and,
therefore, this Court directed the respective State Governments to set
up a committee headed by a retired High Court Judge to be nominated
by the Chief Justice of that State to approve the fee structure or to
propose some other fee which could be charged by the institute.
Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 February, 1993
He has
further argued that the said conclusion was arrived at in Modern School
(supra) by Hon‟ble Supreme Court on a detailed consideration of the legal
principles as laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,
(2002) 8 SCC 481, Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645
and Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC
Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003
The Modern
School (supra) further notices the observations made in Islamic Academy of
Education (supra) to the effect that the surplus/profit can be generated but
that shall be used for the benefit of the educational institution and cannot be
diverted for any other purpose or use; neither can such surplus/profit be used
for personal gains or for other business or enterprise.
Rishiraj College Of Dental Sciences & ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh . on 17 September, 2015
25. Paragraph no.75 in Modern Dental College (supra) categorically
holds that in order to see that educational institutions are not indulging in
commercialization and exploitation, the Government is equipped with
necessary powers to take regulatory measures and to ensure that these
educational institutions keep playing a vital and pivotal role to spread
education and not to make money. Paragraph no.75 of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder: -
P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 August, 2005
He has also relied upon T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and Islamic
Academy of Education (supra), as also on P.A. Inamdar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537. Mr. Jha has thus submitted that when it
comes to the notice of the Government that a particular institution is
charging fees or other charges which are excessive, it has a right to issue
directions to such an institution to reduce the same.
V.C., Banaras Hindu University & Ors vs Shrikant on 12 May, 2006
17. It is also the submission on behalf of the respondent/schools that
giving liberty to the DoE to re-open the issue of fee structure that was
established and charged 8-10 years ago will not be justified, nor shall it be
LPA 213/2024, LPA 316/2024 & LPA 669/2024 Page 9 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:09.10.2025
17:27:06
reasonable. Relying upon V.C., Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant,
(2006) 11 SCC 42, K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 43,
Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 SCC 331, and H.L.
Trehan v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 764. It has been argued further that
re-hearing of any matter on remand may not be ordered in this case for the
reason that any such exercise would not yield any different result, and in
such a situation, remitting the matter back to DoE will only be an exercise in
futility.