Don’t act against private schools over fee issue, Bombay HC directs Maharashtra govt

The challenge in the petition has been based on the ground that the government did not amend the Fee Act or pass any ordinance before issuing the GR

The Bombay high court (HC) on Friday temporarily restrained the state from taking any coercive steps against private schools, if they refuse to reduce fees for the current academic year by 15% in terms of the August 12 government resolution of the state government.

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

HC also directed the state government to respond to the petition filed by the Association of Private Schools which has challenged the August 12 government resolution which has asked schools to reduce fees for the academic year 2021-22 by 15%. The challenge in the petition has been based on the ground that the government did not amend the Fee Act or pass any ordinance before issuing the GR.

The petition is now posted for further hearing on September 20.

The division bench of justice R D Dhanuka and justice R I Chagla while hearing a petition by the Association of Indian Schools (ICSE and CBSE-affiliated schools) on August 25 was informed by senior advocate Pravin Samdhani that the petition challenged the validity of the GR on various grounds. He submitted that the state government had exercised its executive powers under Article 162 of the constitution arbitrarily while issuing the GR.

As per the GR, the school that had recovered full fees from students had to either refund 15 per cent of the fees or adjust the additional amount recovered in the fees for the next month, quarter or academic year. The GR states that in the event of any dispute, complaints should be raised with the divisional fee regulatory or the divisional grievance redressal committees whose decision will be final.

“These orders will apply to schools of all boards and all mediums with immediate effect,” the GR read. The GR has also restrained schools from disallowing students who have not paid their fees either in the physical or online mode nor should they be prevented from attending exams or withholding their results. The GR is, however, not a mandatory directive to the schools.

The justification for the reduction in the fees has been justified by the school education department by citing the Supreme Court’s directive to the Rajasthan government in May, this year. The directive stated that as facilities were not used by students, the fees should be reduced by 15 per cent. While issuing the GR the department stated that it had done so as the apex court had asked the Maharashtra government to consider the Rajasthan order as well.

Samdhani submitted that payment of fees to be collected by the Education Institutions in Maharashtra were covered under the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011, hence the state government could not issue such a GR contrary to 2011 without making amendments to the Act or coming out with an ordinance.

In light of these submissions, Samdhani informed the bench that the petitioners sought to quash and set aside the GR.

Additional government pleader N C Walimbe for the school education department sought two weeks to respond to the petition. The court while allowing the request asked the petitioner association to file a rejoinder in a week thereafter.

The bench in its order noted, “Till next date, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners for not implementing the impugned GR dated August 12, 2021.”