Judgment - K12 Schools India

dgm
1
925-wp-2818 and 2821-15.sxw
C
ou
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
rt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
WRIT PETITION NO.2818 OF 2015
Vibgyor High School vs
State of Maharashtra and ors
.... Petitioner
.... Respondents
ig
h
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2821 OF 2015 H
Noble Foundation
vs.
State of Maharashtra and ors.
….
Petitioners
….. Respondents ba
y
Mr. Prateek Saksaria with Mr. Nivit Srivastava, Mr. Nakul Jain with Mr. Umesh Tawari i/by Maniar Srivastava Associates for the petitioner in WP/2818/2015.
om
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nivit Srivastava, Mr. Nakul Jain with Mr. Umesh Tawari i/by Maniar Srivastava Associates for the petitioner in WP/2821/2015.
B
Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Ms. Anisha Kulkarni and Mr. M. V. Thorat for Intervenors (Applications not filed). CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ.
DATE : March 26, 2015
1/5
::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2015 10:18:02 :::
dgm
2
925-wp-2818 and 2821-15.sxw
rt
P.C.:
C
ou
The learned AGP appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 seeks time to file reply. Though respondent No.3 is served, none appeared. Affidavit of service is filed.
The learned senior counsel/counsel appearing for the ig
h
2
Petitioners, however, submitted that there is an urgency in the matter as, by the impugned order/communication dated 5.3.2015, H
apart from the other requirements/show cause notice, an order is passed unilaterally to suspend the fee hike till a final decision, at ba
y
the level of Deputy Officer (Education), thereby the fee structure for the academic year 2015­2016 so prepared based upon the existing provisions and the recovery of the same even for the first quarter om
which is required to be paid before 31.1.2015 is automatically got stayed. The Petitioners, who are unaided minority institutions, B
even are not able to collect these fees which are necessary for them to disburse further basic amount including statutory payment before 31.3.2015 to all the concerned Departments, apart from the salaries of the staff.
3
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the 2/5
::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2015 10:18:02 :::
dgm
3
925-wp-2818 and 2821-15.sxw
rt
parties and in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.696/2015 – St. Xavier's Education Trust v. The State of C
ou
Maharashtra, dated 17.02.2015 where in a similar situation, this Court has stayed the similar communication, we are also inclined to stay the said communication.
In the present case, after hearing the parties, we have ig
h
4
also noted that apart from the constitutional challenge and even H
the applicability of the The Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 (Mah. Act No. VII of 2014) (for short, “the Act”) is agitated so also the power of Respondents to pass ba
y
order dated 5.3.2015 based upon the complaints of parents as well om
as the communication received by the others. 5
There is no serious issue that the said Act brought in force with effect from 1.12.2014 by a notification dated 29.11.2014. B
There are Rules, machineries required be framed and constituted even for dealing with the issue of fee structure of such institution i.e. only if the Petitioner/institution is governed by this Act. For the formation of Parents Teachers Association, as contemplated in Chapter II referring to Section 4, requires various prior steps to be 3/5
::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2015 10:18:02 :::
dgm
4
925-wp-2818 and 2821-15.sxw
rt
followed within the prescribed period. Therefore, unless these positions are clear, we see no reason at this stage to overlook the C
ou
challenge so raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The power of Respondents basically respondent No.3, to pass such order is also not supported by any provisions and/or Act basically in the background that in the last year also the ig
h
Petitioners have increased fee structure around 10%. This time, they have increased the same around 9 to 14%. That was done in H
October 2014 itself as admissions normally start from October 2014. Admittedly, the Act in question came into force from 1.12.2014. There was no such order and/or inquiry made by the ba
y
Respondents in the last year. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, we see a case is made out, as the question is of power and om
jurisdiction of Respondent No.3, to pass such order of staying the recovery of increased fee, at this stage of the academic year. Therefore, we are inclined to grant ad interim relief in terms of B
prayer (h). Order accordingly.
6
However, considering the Parents pending agitation/complaints and as submitted by the counsel appearing for the respective batch of parents, who orally submitted to 4/5
::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2015 10:18:02 :::
dgm
5
925-wp-2818 and 2821-15.sxw
rt
intervene in the matters and also submitted that they will file Intervention Applications by 6.4.2015. The Petitioners to file reply C
ou
and defences to the same. However, in the interest of all and considering the fee structure which covers the first quarter fee to be paid before 31.03.2015 need to be taken care of and the respective parents, at this stage, without prejudice to their rights and ig
h
contentions, if there is any issue of the respective parents, we are inclined to direct them to deposit the fee amount instead of H
31.03.2015, by 15.04.2015. This order will be subject to further modification/clarification after hearing all the concerned.
om
8
Stand over after four weeks HOB. ba
y
7
Parties to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of B
this order. (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
5/5
::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2015 10:18:02 :::