Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J. S.H. Kapadia, J.
Forum for Fairness in Education Western
Suburbs, Mumbai others..... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 614 of 1999 with Notice of Motion No. 159 of 1999, decided on 28-6-1999.
Advocates appeared :
Sudhir Shah with N.C. Parikh and Ms. B.A. Gada, I/by Mansukhlal Hiralal Co., for petitioners.
C.J. Sawant, Advocate General with R.V. Govilkar, Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Girish Kulkarni with S.I. Kazi, for respondent No. 4.
S.A. Diwan with G.S. Patel R.S. Jaisinghani, I/by Hariani Co., for respondent No. 5.
M.B. Rao, for respondent-Municipal Corporation.
Section 4-Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Transfer of Management) Act, 1971, Section 4Collection of capitation fee-There being complete prohibition for-Collection of amount in excess of prescribed or approved rates of fees by institutions amounts to collection of capitation fee though it may be named in different name-Computer fee for standards lower than standard IX, advertisement charges and interest free security deposit when collected amount to capitation fee.- Thus it can be seen that there is complete prohibition against collection of capitation fee under the Act and the offence has been made cognizable. The definition is very wide and comprehensive. The amount by whatever name it may be called, when in excess of prescribed or approved rates, would be capitation fee within the meaning of the Act. The label given to the amounts collected by the schools, in Courts view is immaterial. The real question is the substance of the collection so as to find out whether it is prohibited under the Act or not and, if prohibited what directions may be issued in respect of the amounts collected by the schools during last many years.
It does not appear computer subject was an optional subject for the students upto Standard IX. The aforesaid affidavit shows that it is not even the case of the school that it is an optional subject. The State of Maharashtra has issued a circular directing that computer education has to be optional even for Standards IX and X. Contrary to the stand in the affidavit. In oral submission it was contended that the subject was optional though it was not disputed that petitioner No. 3s daughter was the only child who had not opted for computer education. According to the Government Circular, if computer education for standards lower than Standard IX is introduced, there cannot be levy of any fee or charge. Under these circumstances, it was directed by Court that hence forth, no computer fee would be charged from the students from Standard I to Standard VIII.
Section 4-Collection of capitation fee from students-Validity-Charging computer fee from student of classes I to VIII, collection of charges for publication of advertis2ments in souvenir of schools at time of admission and also collection of interest free deposits from parents of students at time of admission, all being capitation fee is illegal -However it can be permitted only with approval of State Government-Conclusions are:
(a) Demand or collection of any amount either as interest free deposit or charges for advertisement or in any other name at or about the time of admission of a ward in a school without approval of the Authorities is illegal.
(b) No computer fee is chargeable from Standard I to Standard VIII, except with the approval of the State Government.
(c) The State Government Authorities are required to remain vigilant and under obligation to take appropriate steps when violation of the Act comes to light.
2. The main point, which falls for determination in this petition, is about the validity of collection of certain amounts by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Schools at the time of granting admission to students. The challenge is also to the validity of collection of computer fee by respondent No. 4 School from students of primary section.
3. The petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by a Non-Governmental organisation and its officers, besides some of the petitioners whose children are, studying in the respondent Schools. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 2 is the Deputy Director of Education. The Additional Municipal Commissioner in charge of primary education is respondent N. 3. St. Mary English School, Malad, Mumbai, and New Era School, Tardeo, Mumbai, are respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
4. Respondent No. 4 School is said to be charging Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- towards advertisements in Souvenirs which are never published. It is claimed that two children of petitioner No. 3 were studying in respondent No. 4 School, one in Senior K. G. and the other in Standard III. According to petitioner No. 3, who claims to be a Computer Technocrat, respondent No. 4 School, with a view to collect large funds through fees of computer education, has unauthorisedly imposed the said subject from standard I, even when the child has not learnt words, numericals and arithmetics required for computer learning. He alleges that since July 1998 his daughter, who studies in standard III, was not permitted to attend the classes for non-payment of computer fee. The computer fee and charging Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- for souvenir publication are stated to be in violation of Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Petitioner No. 3 says that current rate per seat is Rs. 7,000/-. Some of the letters written by petitioner No. 3 to the school and to the Authorities have been placed on record. He further alleged that for fear of victimisation from respondent No. 4 School, he also withdrew his son from senior K.G., with the result that both his children are at home.
5. In respect of respondent No. 5 New Era School, allegation is that the said School grants admission to students only on compulsory deposit of Rs. 20,000/-. Further, in the petition a grievance has also been made about respondent No. 5 having changed the medium of education from Gujarati to English, but learned Counsel for the petitioners did not press this aspect and submits that he would agitate it in separate proceedings in accordance with law.
6. It is not in serious dispute that parents pay charges at the time of admission of their wards in schools. The stand of respondent No. 4 School, however, is that the payment is voluntary and there is no compulsion for making such payment. The payment of computer fee from standard I is also not in dispute. Denying the allegation of the petitioners, Counsel for respondent No. 4 School submits that computer education is only optional, and was commenced on the insistence of the parents. Similarly, respondent No. 5 School does not dispute the payment of Rs. 20,000/- at the time of admission of the child, and claims that it is a without interest refundable deposit and is not 'capitation fee'. The claim is that the amount paid as interest free deposit is refundable when the child leaves the School. It is further claimed that there is no compulsion, but parents are persuaded to give such deposit and by and large parents deposit the same with very few exceptions. Further claim of respondent No. 5 School is that there is no quid pro quo between admission and deposit and it is only after the admission process is complete, and admission is given on merit alone, that such deposit is asked for. The deposit initially was in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the year 1986 and gra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
