Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
M/s. Asan Memorial Association – Petitioner
Versus
Dhanasekaran S. – Respondent
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3608 of 2024, C.M.P. No. 19609 of 2024
Decided On : 27-09-2024
ORDER :
Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.08.2024 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2023 in O.S. No. 8084 of 2021 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order of the learned III Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, in I.A. No. 3 of 2023 in O.S. No. 8084 of 2021. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The civil revision petitioner is a society running an Educational Institution under the name and style of “Asan Memorial Senior Secondary School.” The said institution is affiliated to the Central Board for Secondary Education since the year 1966.
2. The cause of action for defendant had enrolled the 2nd the filing of the suit is that the 1st defendant in the said school but defaulted in payment of school fees from the academic years 2018-2019 till 2020-2021. This resulted in accumulation of outstanding of Rs.76,275/- which the school demanded by way of present suit, calculating interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. The defendants filed a detailed written statement placing reliance upon the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Calculation of Fee) Act, 2009. According to the defendant, the fee that is collected by the school is in excess of the rate fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee created under the Act and they would plead that the school is not entitled to the claim as sought for.
4. Pending the suit, an application was taken out in I.A. No. 3 of 2023, under Order XXVI Rule 11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a direction to the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, to perform its duties in terms of the aforesaid Act.
5. A detailed counter was filed by the plaintiff resisting the said application. According to the plaintiff, in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16 of 2013 dated 28.01.2016, Fee Fixation Committee cannot submit a report contrary to the Act.
6. The learned Trial Judge after perusal of the affidavit and petition came to the conclusion that unless and until the report is obtained from the committee, he cannot proceed further with the suit. Therefore, he allowed the application. Hence, the revision.
7. Heard Mr. A.R. Karunakaran and Mr. M. Purushothaman for the respective parties.
8. Mr. A.R. Karunakaran would primarily attack the order on the ground that the order is bereft of details and it is an attempt by the defendant to gather evidence in support of his plea.
9. Mr. M. Purushothaman would draw my attention to the order passed by the Supreme Court and would point out that the Supreme Court had not stayed the entire Act but had limited the regulatory mechanism of the Fee Fixation Committee to the one contemplated under Section 7 (3) of the Act. He would state in terms of Section 7 (3) (1), the Fee Fixation Committee has power to verify whether the fee collected by the school is commensurate with the facilities provided by the said school. He pleads that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge is in line with the order passed by the Supreme Court and does not require any interference.
10. Mr. M. Purushothaman would also rely upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in N.C. Dhoundial Vs. Union of India and Others, 2004 (2) SCC 579. He would plead that the Supreme Court had held that in cases like these has held though there might be a bar for a statutory authority to act in that capacity, it certainly can aid the Court as an expert body.
11. In addition, Mr. M. Purushothaman submits that as per the calculation given by the Fee Fixation Committee as per order dated 16.04.2013, 10% increase is to be given. He adds, if that mode of calculation is adopted the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the institution and not a sum of Rs.76,275/- as claimed by the plaintiff.
12. I have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides.
13. The State of Tamil Nadu brought out the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of
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....
Once the fee is determined under Section 10(3) of the Act of 2007, the same is to remain intact for the period of three years and the students who have taken admission on the basis of such fees deter....
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
