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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more