The state justified the May 8 government resolution which restrained private unaided schools from collecting additional hiked fees for the academic year 2020-21 from parents and students by stating that the fee hike recommended by the PTA executive committee in January 2020 was for the academic year 2019-20 and hence the schools cannot be aggrieved by the restraining GR. The counsel for the state argued that though there was a reasonable restriction in the Fee Regulation Act, under the peculiar circumstances it was well within its right to restrain the schools from collecting additional hiked fees.
A division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing the response of the state to the petitions filed by various private unaided schools and school groups challenging the May 8 GR was informed by senior counsel Anil Anturkar for the state that the GR was valid. He submitted that nowhere in their petitions had the schools explained the provisions under which they were claiming a right to collect additional hiked fees.
While responding to the contention of the schools that the fee hike for the academic year 2020-21 was approved by the Executive Committee of the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) that was duly appointed by the school managements, Anturkar submitted that it was not possible for an EC of a previous year to approve the fee hike for the next year and the same would be applicable for the academic year it was approved in.
He further submitted that the claims of the school that they had declared the fee hike under provisions of section 6 (1) (a) and (b) of the Fee Regulation Act of 2011 could not be valid as the amendment was introduced only in August 2019 by which time the academic year had started. Anturkar submitted that as the amendment expected schools to declare fee hike over a period of five or ten years, the schools could not take benefit of the same as it had to be implemented either at the time of admission of a student to Class 1 or Class 5.
{{/usCountry}}He further submitted that the claims of the school that they had declared the fee hike under provisions of section 6 (1) (a) and (b) of the Fee Regulation Act of 2011 could not be valid as the amendment was introduced only in August 2019 by which time the academic year had started. Anturkar submitted that as the amendment expected schools to declare fee hike over a period of five or ten years, the schools could not take benefit of the same as it had to be implemented either at the time of admission of a student to Class 1 or Class 5.
{{/usCountry}}Anturkar further stated that the restriction in the GR was valid as parents had lost their jobs or their salaries had been cut, hence paying additional hiked fees would not be possible for them.
After hearing the submissions, the bench sought to know from the schools under which provision of the Fee Regulation Act they were claiming the hiked fees for the academic year 2020-21 and posted the matter for further hearing on Wednesday.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.