Unaided schools do not require prior approval from the Directorate of Education for fee hikes, as long as they comply with statutory obligations and do not engage in profiteering.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

CM APPL. 18333/2025 (by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking directions)

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner association alleging that respondent no.1 i.e. Maharaja Agrasen Model School [hereafter the ‘School’] vide letter dated 22.03.2025, has denied education and other facilities to students who have not paid the increased school fees, although the students are stated to be regularly depositing the school fees as approved by the respondent no.2/Directorate of Education [hereafter ‘DoE’]. Therefore, the petitioner association is seeking direction to respondents to refrain from taking anycoercive action against the students

2. On 04.04.2025, this Court had directed respondent no.1/School to permit the aggrieved students to attend the classes during the interregnum. The said interim direction is continuing till date.

3. Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that respondent no.1/School has been allotted land by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) at concessional rates, thereby obliging it to obtain prior approval from the DoE before increasing the school fees. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Justice for All v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 355, as well as, on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modern School v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 583 .

4. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1/School submits that prayer made in the present application is in teeth of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools v. Directorate of Education , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7591 [hereafter referred to as ‘Action Committee – I’].

5. He submits that the said decision was taken in appeal by DoE before the Division Bench in LPA No.230/2019 and vide order dated 03.04.2019, the Division Bench only restrained the schools from collecting the amount constituting interim fee hike in terms of order dated 17.10.2017 passed by DoE. However, there was no stayof the judgment in Action Committee – I.

6. He further contends that the judgment in Action Committee – I has subsequently, been relied upon extensively in order dated 29.04.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 5743/2024 titled as Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools v. Directorate of Education , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3121 [hereafter referred to as ‘Action Committee – II’], wherein this Court has reiterated exposition of law that no prior approval of DoE is required for the purpose of increasing fee by private unaided schools, whether on government land or otherwise.

7. In rejoinder, Mr. Jha submits that the decision in Action Committee I has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.230/2019 and the said interim order has been made absolute subsequently vide order dated 27.10.2022. Therefore, the School cannot enhance fees without prior approval from DoE, let alone demand it.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records.

9. The grievance of the petitioner/applicant in the present petition, as well as, the present application is with regard to the actions of respondent no.1/School against the students, whereby the School has alleged persistent default by parents of certain students in respect to the school fees. The case of the applicant is that although, parents have cleared all dues in terms of the fee structure approved by the DoE, however, the School is insistent on the fee structure