School education department not authorised to grant fee relief under Disaster Management Act: Institute to Bombay high court

The arguments of other petitioners will continue on December 9

In what can be deemed as a setback for the Maharashtra government, a petitioner has argued that the state’s decision to restrain private unaided schools and permanently unaided schools from hiking school fees for the academic year 2020-21 on May 8, is invalid.

The petitioner also said that the restrain over collecting fees was only restricted during the lockdown period. (HT FILE)

The petitioner submitted that while the legislation has appointed the revenue and forest department as the sole authority to implement the DM Act, the May 8 government resolution (GR) was issued by the school education and sports department, and was hence ultra vires (beyond one’s legal power or authority).

A division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the GR issued by the school education and sports department on May 8 restrained the fee hike and forcing parents from paying fees during the lockdown, was informed by advocates Prateek Seksaria and Saket Mone for Global Education Foundation that the impugned GR was not valid.

Seksaria drew the attention of the bench towards the various notifications, circulars and resolutions pertaining to implementing various reliefs for the citizens of the state issued since March 23 and said that all of them had been issued by the revenue and forest department.

Seksaria also pointed out to the fact that the state had also violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution by issuing the May 8 GR, as it had singled out private unaided schools.

“The state, as per a circular issued soon after the lockdown was implemented, had said that it wanted to provide a source of income or reduce the expenses of the people. However, by asking private institutions not to hike or collect fees, it was violating the constitutional rights of the institutions,” submitted Seksaria.

He added that the restriction on collecting fees was only restricted during the lockdown period. Hence, the GR could not have been enforced after June 8, when ‘Mission Begin Again’ was implemented and lockdown restrictions were eased. He also submitted that in light of the fact that the schools were regulated by the Fee Regulation Act, 2011, further restrictions could not be forced upon the private institutions.

After hearing the submissions, the court sought clarity on the applicability of section 6 (1) A of the Fee Regulation act which was introduced last year in September, and deals with parents consenting to schools hiking fees annually from Class 1 to Class 10 or in two parts: from Class 1 to Class 5 and Class 6 to Class 10 at the time of admission. Seksaria submitted that the GR restrictions were applicable for such fee increases too, as students took transfers from one school to another or from one state to another.

Arguments by other petitioners will continue on Wednesday, December 9.