The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by the Directorate of Education of the Delhi Government against the refusal of a Delhi High Court division bench to stay a single bench judgment which had quashed the government notifications asking private unaided schools not to charge annual, development fees.Noting that the division bench of the High Court is scheduled to hear the...
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by the Directorate of Education of the Delhi Government against the refusal of a Delhi High Court division bench to stay a single bench judgment which had quashed the government notifications asking private unaided schools not to charge annual, development fees.
Noting that the division bench of the High Court is scheduled to hear the Delhi Government's appeal against the singe bench judgment on July 12, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the special leave petition.
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed that the Delhi Government will be at liberty to raise all available contentions before the Delhi High Court division bench and that the Supreme Court's dismissal should not be seen an as an expression on the merits of the dispute.
On May 31, a single bench of Justice Jayanth Nath had quashed two 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. The single bench had also directed the schools to slash the tuition fee by 15%, as per the Suprem Court judgment in Rajasthan private unaided schools case.
On June 7, a vacation bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Amit Bansal refused to grant interim stay of the single bench judgment, while issuing notice on the Delhi Government's appeal.
Challenging the division bench's refusal to grant stay, the Delhi Government approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments in Supreme Court
A Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar heard the submissions of Senior Advocate Shyam Divan (appearing for a Respondent), Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul (appearing for an intervenor), and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (appearing for the Delhi Government), and dismissed the plea, while allowing the Petitioner to raise their contentions before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Divan had submitted that the appeal was to be heard by the Division Bench on the fixed date, i.e. 12th July, 2021 – "High Court took guidance and gave benefit to the parents and students. They reached the decision that the Delhi Government's notification was ultra vires. It is coming up on 12th July. Let the Division Bench take a call on that".
Divan's submission was also supported by Kaul.
Singh, per contra, sought for a stay on the Delhi High Court order. To this, the Apex Court asked him why the State was getting concerned about a matter between a private school and its students. Singh responded that the State was a repository of the students.
He submitted that the Delhi High Court's order was decided on the basis of the
Supreme Court order in the case of Rajasthan Private Schools, without taking into account that the situation in both the cases was different. The Rajasthan government order was issued under the Disaster Management Act and it curtailed tuition fee. On the other hand, Singh submitted, the Delhi Government orders were issued under the Delhi School Education Act and they impacted only annual fee and development fee, without affecting schools' right to take tuition fee. He referred to Duggal committee report to state that the expenses of the schools are to be met from the tuition fee. So, the restriction on taking annual fees or development fees will not impact the functioning of schools, he argued.
He further stated that decision of the Supreme Court was wrong as the figure of 15% in that case had been" pulled out of the hat".
"Delhi High Court straightaway applied the Rajasthan judgment mutatis mutandis. I have permitted tuition fee. What I've not permitted is annual charges and development fee", submitted Singh.
However, the Bench was not inclined to hear the matter, and directed for all the contentions to be placed before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
On 7 June, 2021, a Vacation Bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court had refused to stay a Single-Judge order quashing the Delhi Government's order that prevented private unaided schools in Delhi from collecting Annual Charges and Development fees from their students.
The High Court had noted that it was prima facie inclined to agree with the Single Judge's observations that the Directorate of Education did not have any power to issue directions under the Delhi School Education Act. Further, it was stated that management of such schools did not receive aid from the Government, and were solely dependent on fee collected by them. Therefore, the Government could not have a say in the same.
(Case : Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi v Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools, SLP(c) 7791-7792/2021)