WP(C) Nos. 5939-5941 of 2008; 3096, 3152, 3156, 3158, 3160-3162, 3164-3166 of 2009:

In all the aforesaid writ petitions, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that without giving any notice, an order has been passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal dated 6th June, 2009, whereby, without receiving any complaint for these schools, stay has been given for not to increase the fees by more than 15% and a Committee has been constituted by the Tribunal for all the schools within the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the impugned order dated 6th June, 2009 deserved to be quashed and set aside. They have also relied upon a decision, rendered by this Court dated 28th August, 2007 in W.P.(C) No. 2876 of 2007 and other allied matters.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that, in fact, the, Tribunal cannot treat a matter, pending before it, as a Public Interest Litigation and cannot pass a general lump sum order applicable to one and all the schools in absence of any complaint and without giving any notice to the petitioner(s), to the effect that the petitioners (schools herein) cannot enhance the fee structure. They have also relied upon Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005 (in short “the Act, 2005’), especially Section 9 thereof and several other sections of the said Act, 2005.

3. They have also relied upon several decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that the Tribunal has no power, jurisdiction and authority to take decision relating to the fees, levied by the schools, as they are unaided privately managed schools, some of them are even minority schools.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 10, who has submitted that it is true that most of the petitioners-schools are not given notices. Petitioner No.2 in W.P.(C) No. 5939 of 2008 is given a notice. Likewise in W.P.(C) no. 5941, except petitioner No.3, all the petitioners have been given notices. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 10 that the Tribunal has got all power, jurisdiction and authority to fix or to limit the fees, being levied by the schools. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 10 that the Tribunal has all the power, jurisdiction and authority to constitute a Committee because the Tribunal is not a Cost Accountant or a Chartered Accountant and, therefore, the Tribunal has constituted a Committee, so that able assistant may be given to the Tribunal. Nonetheless, no final decision has been taken by the Tribunal and the impugned order is appellable one under Section 15 of the Act, 2005.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand has submitted that as such order of State is not under challenge. It is also submitted by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, that the whole matter is subjudice before the Tribunal and in W.P.(C) Nos. 5939 of 2008, 5940 of 2008 and 5941 of 2008 the petitioners-schools have challenged the decision, taken by the Government, which is in the form of notification, whereby, their challenge is that the Government cannot interfere with the administration of the unaided minority schools. In rest of the petitions ex parte order, passed by the Tribunal, is under challenge. Nonetheless, it is submitted that there ought to be complaint before J.E.T. for a particular school and notice of hearing ought to have been issued to that school, against whom an order is passed.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it appears that the Jharkhand Education Tribunal has passed an order dated 6th June, 2009, which has taken in its sweep, all the schools within the State of Jharkhand, including the present petitioners, without receiving complaint for individual school and without issuing any notice that they shall not increase their fee structure by more than 15% and a Committee has been constituted for all the schools, so that the schools may represent their cases bef