Settle fee hike issue amicably: HC to Maharashtra govt, parents and schools

The Bombay high court (HC) has asked the Maharashtra government, parents and schools to resolve the fee hike issue amicably

The Bombay high court (HC) has asked the Maharashtra government, parents and schools to resolve the fee hike issue amicably.

HT Image

HC directed the Maharashtra government, through the education department, to publish the details of the divisional fee regulation committees (DFRC) in all the divisions of SSC board via media after it was informed that many private unaided schools had acted “high-handedly” by increasing the fees for the academic year 2020-21 and had refused to allow students to attend virtual classes whose parents who were unable to pay them.

However, the unaided schools’ forum sought to oppose the public interest litigation (PIL) stating that the allegations were not valid as there was no specific case mentioned in the plea and hence, sought time to file a reply.

HC, however, said that due to the pandemic, schools should approach the issue differently to avoid forcing parents approaching the court. The intervenors were asked to file their reply by July 12.

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, was hearing the PIL filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Atul Bhatkhalkar and some parents. The bench was informed that though schools had been functioning virtually during the entire pandemic period and would continue to do so till the lockdown restrictions are lifted by the government, the court should direct authorities to get the institutes to provide various reliefs to parents and not act high-handedly by increasing fees for the new academic year. The PIL had sought directions to allow parents to pay fees in instalments and not debar students from attending classes.

Senior counsel Birendra Saraf for Bhatkhalkar submitted that several parents in the western suburbs had complained about aided and unaided schools debarring their children from attending online classes due to non-payment of fees and hence, they had approached HC as similar problems were being faced by parents not only in Mumbai but other parts of the state as well. He added that the state had failed to constitute DFRCs.

On Thursday, additional government pleader (AGP) for the state in response to the query of the bench on Wednesday submitted the government notification of June 7, which constituted DFRCs for Mumbai, Pune, Nashik, Nagpur and Aurangabad that were headed by a retired judge and said that process for appointing DFRCs in Kolhapur, Latur and Nashik divisions were underway. The AGP submitted that information of these DFRCs would be put up on the government website as soon as they were constituted.

However, senior advocate JP Sen for unaided schools’ forum objected to the issues raised by the petitioners and said that the claims were vague and were not substantiated with any instances wherein parents were forced to pay fees or students were not allowed to attend classes. Sen requested the court to allow the forum to intervene and file its reply to the PIL, which the court allowed.

The court then said that as the apprehension of the petitioners about DFRCs not being constituted were addressed, it would consider the other grievance of fee hike and said, “We allow intervenors to file reply so that the issue can be resolved amicably in the current circumstances arising out of pandemic. Let reply affidavits be placed on record by July 14.”

The PIL has been posted for hearing to July 16.