Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
P.Ravi – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Private Schools Fee Determination Committee – Respondents
W.P.No.28825 of 2023
Decided on : 04-10-2023
CAPITATION FEE - EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitalisation of Fee) Act, 1992; Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fees) Act, 2009 - The court discussed the prohibition of capitation fees under the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitalisation of Fee) Act, 1992 and the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fees) Act, 2009. It emphasized that the Fee Determination Committee has the authority to regulate fees but noted that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of capitation fees paid. The court concluded that the petitioner must establish claims in a civil court, as the committee's jurisdiction was not applicable in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the undated letter from the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, which closed his complaint regarding the refund of capitation fees paid for his children's admission to a school. The petitioner claimed to have paid a total of Rs.3,25,000/- as capitation fees and sought their return after his transfer to Chennai was canceled.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of having paid capitation fees. It noted that the Fee Determination Committee had not determined any fees for the school in question, and thus, the committee's closure of the complaint was justified. The court concluded that the petitioner should pursue his claims in a civil court.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the alleged capitation fees paid to the school and whether the Fee Determination Committee had the jurisdiction to address the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner must prove the payment of capitation fees through evidence in a civil court, as the Fee Determination Committee's role was limited to fee regulation and did not extend to adjudicating claims of capitation fees without established evidence.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
[Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.]
Prayer : Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the first respondent culminating in the proceedings/ undated letter of 1st respondent closing the representation of petitioner dated 02.08.2023 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of petitioner dated 02.08.2023, afresh on merits and in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the 1st respondent culminating in the proceedings/undated letter of 1st respondent closing the representation of the petitioner dated 02.08.2023 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of petitioner dated 02.08.2023, afresh on merits and in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
2. As per the affidavit averments made in support of this petition, the petitioner claimed that, he had approached the 4th respondent School for admission of the two wards of the petitioner for 8th Standard and 4th Standard respectively, for which, according to the petitioner, the School claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- respectively as capitation fee, which, according to the petitioner, he had paid to an employee one Karuppiah of the 4th respondent School.
3. That apart, the petitioner claimed that, for both the wards separately admission fee of Rs.21,600/- and Rs.21,425/- had been paid, for which the School had given receipt dated 16.02.2022.
4. The petitioner at that time when was working at Delhi since was about to be transferred to Chennai, in anticipation of transfer only he had made arrangements to get admission in the 4th respondent School. However, his transfer proposal was stopped, therefore he has not been transferred from Delhi to Chennai, hence the necessity of admitting the wards in the 4th respondent School at Chennai did not arise. Hence he wanted to get back the fee as well as the alleged capitation fee paid by the petitioner, for which, the petitioner claimed to have sent email, but since there has been no response from the 4th respondent School, the petitioner had given a complaint to the 1st respondent i.e., Tamil Nadu Private Schools Fee Determination Committee.
5. The said Committee, having considered the said complaint given by the petitioner, had given its reply by communication undated which the petitioner has received on 17.08.2023.
6. Challenging the said communication given by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition has been filed with aforestated prayer.
7. Heard Mr.K.Shakespeare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitalisation of Fee) Act, 1992 and the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fees) Act, 2009, the capitation fee since has been prohibited and whatever excess that has been collected by any School other than what has been prescribed by the Fee Determination Committee that can since be construed as capitation fee, the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,25,000/- totally Rs.3,25,000/- paid by the petitioner has to be returned back by the 4th respondent School.
8. Since the 4th respondent School did not come forward to accede to the request made by the petitioner, he had given a complaint to the 1st respondent/Fee Determination Committee, which, instead of entertaining the complaint and to enquire the matter by summoning the 4th respondent School, has given the reply through the impugned communication stating that, the 1st respondent did not determine any fee for the 4th respondent School, therefore the School against whom complaint was given since is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary
The prohibition of capitation fees under the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitalisation of Fee) Act, 1992 and the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of....
A writ petition concerning fee regulation becomes infructuous when the underlying educational institution has been formally closed by government authorities.
Educational institutions must adhere strictly to fee structures mandated by governing bodies, and violations merit reimbursement and compensation.
The Fee Fixation Committee is authorized to verify school fees against provided facilities, and the trial court's order directing this verification was upheld with specific modifications regarding th....
The Fee Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating complaints post-enactment of the Punjab Regulation of Fee of Unaided Educational Institutions Act, 2016, leading to the quashing of its ord....
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
