Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI, JJ.
BHARTIYA VIDYA BHAVAN - PETIYIONER
Vs.
STATE (EDUCATION DEPARTMENT) ORS. - RESPONDENTS
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1812/2014, 6188/2014, 616/2015, 617/2015, 2273/2015
Decided on: 09.03.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Ms. Shobha with Mr. Amit Mittal, Mr. Mahendra Singh, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. S.S. Hasan, Mr. Rajendra Soni, Mr. Anoop Dhand for the respondents.
The Committee constituted under the Rajasthan Schools (Regulations of Collection of Fee) Act, 2013 cannot initiate proceedings to determine school fees unless it first records a finding that the school is charging exorbitant fees. The standard formula for determining fees prescribed by the Act is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates the rights of the school management. The absence of a provision for personal hearing in the Act violates the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN SCHOOLS (REGULATIONS OF COLLECTION OF FEE) ACT, 2013 - SECTION 5, 6 - VALIDITY OF ACT CHALLENGED - COURT FINDS PRIMA FACIE SUBSTANCE IN SUBMISSIONS THAT COMMITTEE CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 6 UNLESS FINDING RECORDED THAT SCHOOL IS CHARGING EXORBITANT FEE - STANDARD FORMULA FOR DETERMINATION OF FEES VIOLATES RIGHTS OF MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS - ABSENCE OF PROVISION FOR PERSONAL HEARING VIOLATES PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY COMMITTEE UNDER SECTION 6(4) APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY WILL CAUSE SERIOUS FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS TO SCHOOLS - IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDERS STAYED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, representing private unaided schools in Rajasthan, challenged the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulations of Collection of Fee) Act, 2013 (the Act). They contended that the Act violated their rights by imposing a standard formula for determining school fees without considering individual circumstances and without providing an opportunity for personal hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court prima facie found substance in the petitioners' submissions. It held that the Committee constituted under the Act could not initiate proceedings under Section 6 to determine school fees unless it first recorded a finding that the school was charging exorbitant fees. The court also found that the standard formula for determining fees violated the rights of the school management and that the absence of a provision for personal hearing violated the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the Committee can initiate proceedings under Section 6 of the Act without first recording a finding that the school is charging exorbitant fees? 2. Whether the standard formula for determining fees violates the rights of the school management? 3. Whether the absence of a provision for personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice to reach its decision. It held that the Act did not authorize the Committee to fix fees for all schools across the board without first determining that they were charging exorbitant fees. The court also held that the standard formula for determining fees was arbitrary and unreasonable and that the absence of a provision for personal hearing violated the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court stayed the implementation of the orders passed by the Committee under Section 6(4) of the Act and directed the State Education Authorities not to take any coercive steps to enforce such orders.
1. Shri Rajendra Prasad, AAG appears for the State of Rajasthan. He seeks three weeks' time to file a detailed reply to the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1812 of 2014 filed by the Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan, which has not been filed so far. In the other connected writ petitions, in which the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulations of Collection of Fee) Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act'), is also under challenge, copies of the writ petitions have been supplied to the respondents. The AAG is allowed three weeks' time to file replies to these writ petitions.
2. On 07.10.2014, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1812/2014 (Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan), we had, after examining the provisions of the Act, passed an order, on an undertaking to be given by the private educational institutions, that for the academic session 2014-15, they will be free to increase the fees until the fee structure is determined, in respect of such schools individually, by the Committee constituted under the Act. Applications as well as additional affidavits have been filed, and allegations have been made in the connection D.B. Civil Writ Petitions, that the Committee is arbitrarily determining the fee in the private schools, by adopting a formula (a statistical model), which is common to all the Schools. It is submitted that formula is being applied, dividing the private schools into categories, namely, those who are charging fee below Rs.10,000/-per annum, and those who are charging above Rs.10,000/- per annum. The Formula, namely, (i) Fsc14-15={Fp, FAdj14-15, (1+C4/100) F13-14} (for schools charging fees below Rs.10,000/-per annum) and (ii) A= Min {Fp, Fp, (1+C4/100) F13-14, Fadj14-15}; B= Min (F12-13, Fadj12-13) Fsc14-15=Max (A, B) (for schools charging fees above Rs.10,000/- per annum) provides for standardized method of fixation of fees. For example, in the Sophia Public School, Bhava, Rajsamand, the school had proposed the average annual fee for the year 2014-15 as Rs.29,138/-. The average annual fee calculated on the basis of admissible proposed expenditure for the year 2014-15, was Rs.38,335/-, whereas the Committee on adopting the formula prepared by it, has permitted an increase in the fees on the basis of CPI, and has fixed the school fees, in the orders passed under Section 6(4) of the Act, at Rs.18,313/-, without affording an opportunity of hearing.
3. It is submitted that the provisions of the Act for determination of school fees under Section 5 of the Act are applicable for determining the school fee, only after recording a finding, after examining the school fees charged and proposed, taking into account the proposed expenditure for the year, that the school is charging exorbitant or excess fees. The provisions of the Act, enacted in light of the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697, apply after recording a finding that the privately managed school, not receiving any aid from State Government in any form, is charging exorbitant fee, and it is only after arriving at such a finding, that the Committee, under Section 5, can determine the fees, on the consideration of factors provided under Section 6(1)(a) to (e), in which a notice is to be given under sub-section (2), against which the private school may file objection within thirty days, and final order to be passed under sub-section (4). Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulations of Collection of Fee) Rules, 2013 framed under the Act provides for the guidelines for fixing the fee.
4. Prima facie, we find substance in the submission that unless a finding is recorded, considering the fact situation and the expenses incurred, including the repayment and servicing of loans, which have been taken, and modernization/expansion, which the management of the school has undertaken or proposes, that the school is chargi
