Private School Fees : Delhi High Court Hears Delhi Govt's Challenge To Single Bench Order Quashing Restrictions On Fee Collection

The Delhi Government on Wednesday submitted before the Delhi High Court that the single judge had gone into a completely forbidden territory while allowing private schools from collecting Annual Charges and Development Fees from students in lockdown.

The Court was hearing the appeals filed by Delhi Government and students challenging the single judge bench decision which quashed two orders issued by the Delhi Government dated 18th April and 28th August 2020 restraining private schools from collecting Annual Charges and Development Fees from students amid covid 19 lockdown.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appearing for the appellant, Directorate of Education, Delhi Government apprised the division bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh that the single judge had no jurisdiction to overlook the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court while dealing with the matter.

Questioning the reliance made on the judgment of Indian School, Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan by the single judge, Singh submitted before the Court that the situation in the Supreme Court judgement was different than the situation that prevailed in Delhi.

"Situation there was that the schools were reopening. The regime was fixed there for 3 years under the Act. The order which they justified was under Disaster Management Act." He submitted.

Stating that schools had not reopened in the case of Delhi, Singh submitted that the observations made by the Supreme Court was limited to its question of law as to what was happening in the State of Rajasthan with regards to reopening of schools and whether the Rajasthan Government can alter the fees by an order passed under Disaster Management Act which is fixed by virtue of a State legislation.

"When the Supreme Court is saying that it's limiting it's challenge to the situation in Rajsthan where schools were reopening, there was no question of applying this judgement." Singh submitted.

Singh further said:

"Single judge has gone into a territory which is completely forbidden. Where is he getting all the observations from? There is no question of rent, Traveling expense etc in the times of pandemic."

After Singh concluded his arguments for the Delhi Government, Advocate Khagesh B Jha began his submissions on behalf of other appellants including Justice For All NGO.

The main thrust of Jha's submission was that the view taken by the single judge was contrary to the observations made by the Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court in plethora of judgments.

"I'll show from the single judge order, that certain heads of charges are completely restricted to be charged as per the Supreme Court order. This includes capital fees expenditure. Can single judge do this?" Jha argued.

Hearing the aforesaid submissions, the bench adjourned the hearing to tomorrow in order to continue hearing in the submissions on behalf of the appellants.

During the previous course of hearing, a vacation bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Amit Bansal issued notice in the appeals while rejecting the interim plea praying for stay of the aforesaid judgment.

"Ultimately, the managements of these unaided, private schools in the city, which do not receive any aid from the GNCTD and are solely dependent on the fee collected by them, would also need funds to sustain their operations and premises and continue imparting education online." Observed the Court while denying the interim relief.

The clutch of pleas were filed assailing the order passed by the single judge bench comprising of Justice Jayant Nath wherein the bench had held thus:

"The impugned acts are prejudicial to the said Schools and would cause an unreasonable restriction in their functioning. In the above facts and circumstances, clearly the impugned orders dated 18.04.2020 and 28.08.2020 issued by the respondent to the extent that they forbid the petitioner/postpone collection of Annual Charges and Development Fees are illegal and ultra vires the powers of the respondent stipulated under the DSE Act and the Rules. The orders to that extent are quashed."

The Court observed that the department of education has the power to fix and collect fees by such unaided educational institutions only for the purpose to prevent commercialization of education by them.Observing that there was no finding recorded by the impugned orders that the collection of Annual Charges and Development Fees tantamounts to profiteering or collection of capitation fees by private unaided recognized schools, the Court held thus:

"A perusal of the impugned orders does not show that the entire body of private unaided recognized schools has indulged in profiteering or charging of capitation fees by seeking to collect Annual Charges and Development Fees in the stated facts and circumstances. As noted, the private recognized unaided schools are clearly dependent only on the fees collected to cover their salary, establishment and all other expenditure on the schools. Any regulations or order which seek to restrict or in-definitely postpone their powers to collect normal and usual fees as is sought to be done by the impugned orders is bound to create grave financial prejudice and harm to the schools."

Furthermore, the Court held:

"The respondent in the facts and circumstances has no power to indefinitely postpone the collection of Annual Charges and Development fees, as is sought to be done. The impugned acts are prejudicial to the said Schools and would cause an unreasonable restriction in their functioning. In the above facts and circumstances, clearly the impugned orders dated 18.04.2020 and 28.08.2020 issued by the respondent to the extent that they forbid the petitioner/postpone collection of Annual Charges and Development Fees are illegal and ultra vires the powers of the respondent stipulated under the DSE Act and the Rules. The orders to that extent are quashed."

While disposing of the petition the Court held that:

"The above directions given in paras (i) to (vii) will apply to the petitioner schools mutatis mutandis. However, clause (ii) has to be modified. The amount payable by concerned students will be paid in six monthly installments w.e.f. 10.06.2021."

Title: Directorate of Education v. Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools