IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of fees by an institution from students or parent, is not a power conferred on Government or its authorities by statute or rules prescribed – There is no ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts insofar as recovery of fees, which are found to be reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is an unaided private school which filed suits for recovery of money, against the students and their parents, which recovery was of the fee hike notified to the parents and their wards, which the parents failed to remit. The suits were decreed by the trial court and in the appeals filed by the defendants, minor modifications were made to the decretal amount and the interest levied, which was reduced from 12% to 6%. The trial court directed the recovery subject to the outcome of the decision of the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (hereinafter referred to as “FFRC”) established under the Haryana School Education Act, 1995¹ [“the Act”] and Haryana School Education Rules, 2003² [“the Rules”] which body was entrusted to go into the reasonableness and justification of the hike in fees.

3. In appeal, the Appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree, directed refund of the entire amounts if the FFRC finds in favour of the defendant students. The plaintiff school filed a Review Petition before the Appellate Court pointing out that, if at all, the FFRC holds in favour of the defendant students, the refund can be only to the extent, the FFRC interferes with the fee hike. The Review Petition was dismissed against which thirty-one Second Appeals were filed by the school. Twenty-Seven, Second Appeals were filed by the parents against the Appellate Order affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, interfered with the concurrent findings on the ground that the rules provided an alternate remedy, which read with Section 22 of the Act, specifically ousted the jurisdiction of the civil courts in fee hike matters. The Special Leave Petitions are filed against the Order of the High Court in which we have granted leave.

4. The facts are identical, and we need only to refer to that arising from Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 8544 of 2022. The parties are referred to as per their status in the suit. It is admitted that none raised a dispute insofar as the defendant students having studied in the school for the entire period for which the suit for recovery of money was filed. It is admitted by the plaintiff that till 2008-09, the students had paid the fees as notified by the school. It was the hike notified by the school in the academic year 2009-10, which led to the dispute raised on the allegation of unreasonable and excessive fees having been charged. The defendant-parents continued to pay the school fees as notified earlier, minus the hike and the school also permitted the students to continue their studies.

5. The Government had also issued a notification restricting the fee hike which was successfully challenged in a Writ Petition. The Judgment having been delivered in the year 2011, an appeal was filed by the State, which was withdrawn in 2014, acceding to the directions in the impugned judgment. Thereafter, the school filed the above suits against the defendants; the students and their parents, the trajectory of which litigation we have already noticed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Sh. H.L. Tiku appearing for the appellant pointed out that the fee hike was notified to the students and there was never a complaint raised before the educational authorities. The notification of the Government restricting the hike to 20% was successfully challenged by the school and within the limitation period, after the disposal of the Writ Petition and the LPA. The rules were amended introducing a remedy to the students/parents who alleged excessive fee hike in any school, by constituting a Committee constituted under the newly incorporated provisions, in the year 2014. Earlier also, there was a Committee appointed by the High Court to look into such complaints before which also no grievance was moved by the students/parents. There is no ouster of jurisdiction as was found by the High Court especially since the remedy provided, even under the newly