Skip to main content

Unaided schools cannot charge fees on quarterly basis: Delhi HC


The Delhi High Court today restrained unaided private schools from charging fees on quarterly basis, saying the city government's guidelines does not authorise them to do so.

The court also said parents are entitled to deposit the fees by 10th of the month in which they are due.

Allowing the plea of a group of parents against a school here, Justice Valmiki Mehta said, "Respondent 1 (school) is directed only to collect monthly fees from the wards of the petitioners and the respondent school will accordingly comply with the provisions of Rules 165 and 166 of Delhi School Education Rules."

Referring to a circular issued by the Directorate of Education of Delhi government, the judge said, "In my opinion, though the circular on the first blush seems to refer to collection of fees on quarterly basis, however, a reading of the entire circular shows that the portion relied upon is only indication of the fact that there possibly is a practice or may be an earlier circular for collection of fees on quarterly basis."

The court said, "This very circular does not authorise the private unaided schools to take fees on quarterly basis.

"In any case, the Director of Education has no power to issue circulars which will be in violation of statutory rules. Rules 165 and 166 are statutory in character.

"Once rules are statutory in character it is not possible for department to issue circulars in violation of these rules whereby fees can be allowed to be charged by a school otherwise than every month and which is payable by the 10th day of the month in which the fees become due."

The court order came on the plea that the practice on the part of unaided private schools in Delhi to compel parents to deposit fees on quarterly basis is "exploitative in character and tantamount to commercialisation of education, which is prohibited in law."

The plea also said " Such practice on the part of the schools is anti-child, violative of the fundamental and human rights of the parents as guaranteed to them under Articles 14,21, 21A and 38 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Delhi School Education Act and the rules made thereunder."

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more