Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:
18. 09.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.No.21819 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 N.S.N.Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, Nehru Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai 44 rep. by its Correspondent .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2.Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 6. 3.The Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 6. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent dated 23.04.2013 made in Order No.Nil in respect of the petitioner school and quash the same and consequently permit the writ petitioner to collect the fees in terms of the fee fixed by the school and submitted to the Committee. For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Silambannan, Sr. Counsel for M/s.Profexs Associates For Respondents .. Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. Govt. Pleader ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI, J.) The writ petitioner, who is an unaided private school has filed the writ petition challenging the final order/fee structure prescribed by the School Fee Determination Committee on the ground of arbitrariness and that it is not in conformity with Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009) and the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 dated 03.5.2012.
2. Petitioner school is self-financing/private unaided school and run by N.S.N. Education Committee. To regulate the collection of fee by the private schools in the State of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 was enacted. The vires of Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 and Rules were upheld by this Court (except Section 11 of the Act and Rules 4(4) and 4(5) of the Rules) [Vide 2010 (4) CTC353.
3. Earlier, various orders passed by the Committee was challenged before this Court on the ground of arbitrariness. By the common order dated 03.5.2012 (W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. Batch), all the writ petitions were remitted back to the Committee with a direction to afford sufficient opportunity to the schools and pass fresh orders. In the said order, this Court interalia issued guidelines for fixation of school fee in respect of (i) salary to teaching and non-teaching staff; (ii) employees provident fund; (iii) contribution to employees State Insurance Corporation; (iv) gratuity and such other head shall be considered based on the bills produced. Various guidelines were issued in Para Nos.88 to 117 and 152.
4. Mr.S.Silambannan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the various guidelines issued by this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc., batch dated 03.05.2012 were not kept in view by the Committee and the Committee had not taken into account the actual expenditure borne out by records and also audited statements furnished by the Petitioner school. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the present Fee Committee fixed the fee for classes XI and XII at Rs.15,250/- for the year 2013-2014 which is lower than the fee of Rs.16,850/- fixed by Justice K.Raviraja Pandian Committee for the year 2010-2011. The learned Senior Counsel had also submitted that the actual expenditure incurred by the school on (i)salary and allowances; (ii)electricity charges; (iii)printing and other aspects; (iv)staff welfare; (v)salary to workers and gardeners and expenses on material; (vi)building maintenance; (vii)gratuity; and (viii)books and periodicals were not taken into account by the Committee, resulting in huge deficit in running of the administration. Drawing our attention to Para 20 of the impugned order passed by the Committee, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the various heads like Generator for fuel, Taxes (property and water) and the various expenditure incurred by the school for specific purposes as indicated in Account Part III were not taken into account by the Committee. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as against the huge expenditure incurred by the school, the Committee has taken into account only the expenditure of Rs.1,87,40,672/-, leaving a huge deficit. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that an opportunity may be given to the Petitioner school to furnish further materials to substantiate the stand of the Petitioner school.
5. Refuting the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner school, Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that all the guidelines issued by the Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch (3.5.2012) were taken into account by the Committee. The learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Committee under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act and as per the statutory mandate under section 6(3), the Petitioner school ought to have filed its objection before the Committee within a period of 15 days and without doing so, the Petitioner has hurriedly filed the writ petition and therefore, the prayer sought for by the Petitioner school cannot be granted in the writ petition.
6. By perusal of the typed set of papers and materials, it is seen that the impugned order was passed under Section 6(1) of the Act which is a provisional order. Section 6(1) of the Act contemplates that the Committee shall determine the fee leviable by a private school taking into account the factors indicated in Section 6(1) of the Act. In terms of Section 6(2), the Committee shall, on determining the fee leviable by a private school, communicate its decision to the school concerned. In terms of Section 6(3), any private school aggrieved over the decision of the Committee shall file their objection before the Committee within 15 days from the date of receipt of the decision of the Committee. Thereafter, the Committee shall pass the orders fixing the fee to be collected by the schools.
7. Section 6 reads as under:- ".Factors for determination of fee. - (1) The Committee shall determine the fee leviable by a private school taking into account the following factors, namely:- (a) the location of the private school; (b) the available infrastructure; (c) the expenditure on administration and maintenance; (d) the reasonable surplus required for the growth and development of the private school; (e) any other factors as may be prescribed. (2) The Committee shall, on determining the fee leviable by a private school, communicate its decision to the school concerned. (3) Any private school aggrieved over the decision of the Committee shall file their objection before the Committee within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the decision of the Committee. (4) The Committee shall consider the objection of the private school and pass orders within thirty days from the date of receipt of such objection. (5) The orders passed by the Committee shall be final and binding on the private school for three academic years. At the end of the said period, the private school would be at liberty to apply for revision. (6) The Committee shall indicate the different heads under which the fee shall be levied.".
8. As pointed out earlier, by perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the order has been passed under Section 6(1) of the Act. However, instead of giving opportunity to the Petitioner school to file their objections , the Committee is said to have passed the final order determining the fee structure. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner school drew our attention to various expenditure incurred by the Petitioner school on salary and allowances; electricity charges; printing and other aspects; staff welfare; salary to workers and gardeners; building maintenance; gratuity and books and periodicals which are according to the Petitioner school were not taken into account by the Committee, resulting in huge deficit in running the administration. As against the huge expenditure incurred by the Petitioner school, the Committee has taken into account only the expenditure of Rs.1,87,40,672/-, leaving a huge deficit. Having regard to the submissions, we are of the view that the Petitioner school is entitled to have an opportunity to file their objections in terms of Section 6(3) of the Act.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner school and the learned Additional Government Pleader we are of the view that the impugned order shall be treated as the order passed under Section 6(1) of the Act and the Petitioner school shall file their objections before the Committee within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On filing such objections before the Committee, the Committee shall afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner school to submit any further details with supporting documents and pass orders in accordance with law.
10. With the above observation and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that till the Committee passes the final order, the Petitioner school shall collect only the fee fixed by the Committee in the impugned order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (R.B.I.,J.) (R.P.S.,J.) 18.09.2013 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mmi/bbr To 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6. 3.The Private School Fee Determination Committee, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6. R.BANUMATHI,J and R.SUBBIAH,J bbr Order in W.P.No.21819 of 2013 18.9.2013