Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :
19. 02.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition Nos.31833, 31860, 31861, 32395 of 2012, 1547, 1548, 2907 and 3016 of 2013 W.P.No.31833, 31860 and 31861 of 2012 & 3016 of 2013: ---------------------------------------------------- Grace Matriculation School (31599) rep. by its Correspondent, Mr.C.Selvaraj, No.2, S.R.P. Colony, Peravallur, Chennai-600 082. .. Petitioner in WP.No.31833/2012 St.Mary's Nursery & Primary School (31478) rep. by its Correspondent, Mr.M.J.Martin Kennedy, No.7/2, Manikanda Mudali street, 2nd street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021. .. Petitioner in WP.No.31860/2012 St.Mary's Matriculation Higher Secondary School (31393) rep. by its Correspondent, Mr.M.J.Martin Kennedy, No.14, Robinson Park Colony, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021. .. Petitioner in WP.No.31861/2012 The Wesleys' Matriculation Higher Secondary School (30443), rep. by its Correspondent Mr.T.John Wesley, No.14, Shastri Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai-600 099. .. Petitioner in WP.No.3016/2013 Vs. 1.The Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, rep. by its Member-Secretary, PTA Building, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The Director of Matriculation Schools, Government of Tamil Nadu, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents W.P.No.32395 of 2012: -------------------- The Correspondent, Holy Cross Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Ammapet, Salem-636 014. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Matriculation Schools, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Chairman, Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents W.P.No.1547 and 1548 of 2013: ---------------------------- Kamban Kalvi Nilaiyam Matric Higher Secondary School (12295) rep. by its Correspondent P.P.Kaliannan, Muthuvelappar street, Pudupalayam, Gobichettipalayam-638 476. .. Petitioner in WP.No.1547/2013 Kamban Kalvi Nilaiyam High School, rep. by its Correspondent P.P.Kaliannan, Muthuvelappar street, Pudupalayam, Gobichettipalayam-638 476. .. Petitioner in WP.No.1548/2013 Vs. The Special Officer Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents in WP.Nos.1547 & 1548/2013 W.P.No.2907 of 2013: ------------------- Sri Krishna Gurukulam, rep. by its Correspondent Nursery and Primary School, Narasimmachari street (opp. HPO), Dharmapuri-636 701. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, D.P.I. Compound, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, by its Special Officer, P.T.A.Building, D.P.I. Campus, Chennai-600 006. 4.The Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri. .. Respondents Writ Petition No.31833 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent vide its order dated 3.6.2011 in respect of the Petitioner school (31599) and quash the same and direct the 1st Respondent to reconsider and re-fix a revised fee structure taking into consideration of the relevant factors and in commensuration with the actual per capita expenditure incurred by the Petitioner school for three consecutive academic years from 2010-2011 after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. Writ Petition No.31860 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent vide its order dated 27.05.2011 in respect of the Petitioner school (31478) and quash the same and direct the 1st Respondent to reconsider and re-fix a revised fee structure taking into consideration of the relevant factors and in commensuration with the actual per capita expenditure incurred by the Petitioner school for three consecutive academic years from 2010-2011 after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. Writ Petition No.31861 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide its order dated 3.6.2011 in respect of the Petitioner school (31393) and quash the same and direct the 1st Respondent to reconsider and re-fix a revised fee structure taking into consideration of the relevant factors and in commensuration with the actual per capita expenditure incurred by the Petitioner school for three consecutive academic years from 2010-2011 after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. Writ Petition No.32395 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned determination of fee by the 3rd Respondent Committee for the Petitioner school vide Proceedings dated 27.05.2011, quash the same and further direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to collect the fees in terms of the statement of fees as submitted by the Petitioner to the 3rd Respondent Committee dated 25.03.2011 and pass such further or other suitable order. Writ Petition Nos.1547 and 1548 of 2013 are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Respondent in order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the Respondent and quash the same. Writ Petition No.3016 of 2013 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd Respondent dated 28.02.2011 in fixing the fee for the Petitioner's school and to quash the same. Writ Petition No.3016 of 2013 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent vide its order dated 3.6.2011 in respect of the Petitioner school (30443) and quash the same and direct the 1st Respondent to reconsider and re-fix a revised fee structure taking into consideration of the relevant factors and in commensuration with the actual per capita expenditure incurred by the Petitioner school for three consecutive academic years from 2010-2011 after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner in : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar WP.No.31833”
31861. 2012 & 3016 of 2013 For Petitioner in : Mr.Godson Swaminath W.P.No.32395/2012 For Petitioner in : Mr.M.Narayaanaswamy W.P.Nos.1547 & 1548 of 2013 For Petitioner in : Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan W.P.No.2907/2013 For Respondents : Mr.Sanjay Gandhi in all the Writ Petitions Addl. Govt. Pleader (Edn.) COMMON ORDER R.BANUMATHI,J Challenging the order dated 28.02.2011, 27.05.2011 and 03.6.2011 respectively passed by Private School Fee Determination Committee that it is not in conformity with Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009), Petitioner schools which are unaided private schools have filed these Writ Petitions. Since the point falling for consideration in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, all the Writ Petitions were taken up heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. In pursuance to the direction issued by the First Bench in P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu v. Federation of Association of Private Schools in Tamil Nadu (2010 (5) CTC 721), the Petitioner schools submitted their response to the questionnaire along with the fee proposed by them and also the supporting materials. The Committee headed by Justice K.Raviraja Pandian passed impugned order dated 28.02.2011, 27.05.2011 and 03.06.2011 respectively fixing the fee structure for three academic years i.e. 2010-11; 2011-12 and 2012-13.
3. Contending that the actual expenditure as per the auditor's statement has not been taken into account and the actual salary paid to the teachers together with statutory payments and other financial commitments have not been taken into account and the fee structure fixed by the Committee is very low, leaving a huge deficit and making it difficult to run the school, Petitioner schools have filed these Writ Petitions.
4. Common contention of Writ Petitioners are that:- Committee did not take into account the total expenditure as per the audited accounts incurred by the schools and the proposed fee structure is not in commensurate with the actual expenditure incurred by the Writ Petitioner schools. No sufficient opportunity was given to the schools. Salary to teaching and non-teaching staff are to be paid on par with VI Pay Commission and the salary has risen nearly by 33% and that the Committee has not taken into account the impact of increase in pay due to Pay Commission. School has various financial commitments viz., (i) increase in Dearness Allowance declared by the State Government twice in a year; (ii) Management's contribution to Employees Provident Funds; (iii) Payment of gratuity to staff members, surrender and encashment of leave salary etc. and (iv) Ex-gratia Pongal Bonus were not taken into consideration by the Committee. It was submitted that Petitioner schools are similarly situated schools as that of the schools in the batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch and prays for remitting the matter back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the guidelines laid down in the common order dated 03.05.2012.
5. Taking us through the typed set of papers, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for Petitioner in W.P.Nos.31833, 13860, 13861 of 2012 and 3016 of 2013] submitted that insofar as Petitioner school in W.P.No.31833 of 2012, the expenditure incurred by the school for the academic years 2008-09; 2009-10; 2010-11 and 2011-12 are Rs.39,87,520/-; Rs.49,85,077/-; Rs.55,27,010/- and Rs.64,28,775/- respectively and the average expenditure incurred up to the academic year 2010-11 was nearly about Rs.48 lakhs; whereas the Committee has considered only Rs.31 lakhs, leaving deficit of Rs.17 lakhs per year making it difficult to run the school. Insofar as Writ Petitioner school in W.P.No.13860 of 2012, the learned counsel contended that the expenditure incurred by the school for the years 2009-10; 2010-11 and 2011-12 are Rs.19,58,501/-; Rs.25,22,300/- and Rs.24,68,355/- respectively. It was submitted that the average expenditure incurred up to the academic year 2010-11 was Rs.22.40 lakhs; whereas the Committee has considered only Rs.15 lakhs, leaving deficit of Rs.7.40 lakhs per year and if the said deficit is taken into account for three academic years i.e. one block period, the total loss incurred by the school would comes to Rs.22.20 lakhs and with this deficit, the Management of the school is not in a position to run the school. Insofar as the Petitioner school in W.P.No.13861 of 2012, the learned counsel contended that the expenditure incurred by the school for the academic years 2008-09; 2009-10; 2010-11 and 2011-12 are Rs.55,59,837/-; Rs.92,14,453/-; Rs.1,09,80,320/- and Rs.1,16,62,467/- respectively. Learned counsel submitted that the average expenditure incurred up to the academic year 2010-11 was Rs.85 lakhs; whereas the Committee has considered the total expenditure as Rs.61 lakhs, leaving deficit of Rs.24 lakhs. According to learned counsel, the school Management is not in a position to meet out the actual expenditure based on the fee fixed by the Committee.
6. Mr.Godson Swaminath, learned counsel for Petitioner in W.P.No.32395 of 2012 submitted that without proper application of mind, the Committee had fixed the fee structure and that the Committee had failed to examine various relevant factors. Drawing our attention to the typed set of papers, learned counsel submitted that the Committee failed to take into account the constructed area available for Headmistress room, Administration room, Staff room, Class room, Library, Extra-curricular activities room and other rooms and that Committee had taken only smaller extent for consideration. Learned counsel further submitted that the school had incurred expenditure on salary to teaching and non-teaching staff at Rs.86,77,016/-, whereas the Committee has considered only Rs.39,85,380/-, leaving deficit of Rs.47 lakhs. Contention of Petitioner is that Committee had arbitrarily fixed the expenditure under the caption "sundry expenses" without any known criteria and without any valid basis and that the Committee ought to have fixed a minimum amount of atleast 10% towards growth and development. The total expenditure incurred by the school is Rs.6,78,26,473/- per annum. But the Committee has considered only Rs.4,09,76,704/-, leaving deficit of Rs.2,68,49,769/- making it extremely difficult to cope up with the deficit.
7. Mr.Rishikesh, learned counsel for Petitioner in W.P.Nos.1547 and 1548 of 2013 submitted that insofar as W.P.No.1547 of 2013, the Committee had fixed the fee structure for a period of three years without any changes and erred in considering the factors such as inflation, cost of living etc. which fluctuate and increase on daily basis. Learned counsel would submit that the Committee ignored the expenses incurred by the school on the heads viz., Provident Fund, Festival Bonus to non-teaching staff, School functions and celebrations, Sports, Travelling expenses, Annual maintenance contract for several departments, Water tax. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that the projected expenditure for the year 2011-12 is Rs.91,79,360/-, whereas the Committee has considered only Rs.29,98,735/-, leaving deficit of Rs.61,80,625/-. Insofar as W.P.No.1548 of 2013, the learned counsel submitted that the total expenditure incurred by the school for the year 2011-12 is Rs.43,81,400/-. But the Committee has considered only Rs.11,02,280/-, leaving deficit of Rs.32,79,120/- and prayed that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the prayed that the matter could be remitted back to the Committee for fixing the fee structure.
8. Drawing our attention to the typed set of papers, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.3016 of 2013 submitted that the expenditure incurred by the school for the years 2009-10; 2010-11 and 2011-12 are Rs.1,08,50,109/-; Rs.89,83,670/- and 99,67,302/- respectively. It was submitted that the average expenditure incurred up to the academic year 2011-12 was Rs.99 lakhs; whereas the Committee has considered total expenditure as Rs.49 lakhs, leaving deficit of Rs.50 lakhs per year. Learned counsel further submitted that if the said deficit is taken into account for three academic years i.e. one block period, the total loss incurred by the school would comes to Rs.150 lakhs and the school Management is not in a position to meet out the actual expenditure based on the fee fixed by the Committee. Learned counsel would further submit that the surplus for development and expenditure on maintenance considered by the Committee are very low.
9. Mr.J.Srivasa Mohan, learned counsel for Petitioner in W.P.No.2907 of 2013 submitted that the Committee has failed to take into account the particulars submitted by the school at the time of fixing the fee. It was contended that the Committee has not considered the additional factors which is in gross violation of the statutory requirement. Learned counsel would further submit that the Committee has not considered the fee structure individually for each class. The requirement of infrastructure, nature of education and the expenditure will differ from class to class. Contention of Petitioner is that the Committee has not given reasonable surplus for the growth and development of the school. Learned counsel submitted that the expenditure incurred by the Petitioner school for the academic years 2010-11; 2011-12 and 2012-13 are Rs.21,14,044/-; Rs.24,52,910/- and Rs.26,56,147/- respectively and that the average for all three years comes to Rs.24,07,700/-. But the Committee has considered only Rs.21,17,654/-, leaving deficit of Rs.2,90,046/- and prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10. Drawing our attention to the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch dated 03.5.2012, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner in all the Writ Petitions submitted that the Petitioner schools are similarly placed schools as that of the schools in the above batch of Writ Petitions and prays for remitting the matter back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the guidelines laid down in the order dated 03.05.2012.
11. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that for the forthcoming academic years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, questionnaire formats were already hosted in the website and it is for the schools to fill up the questionnaire and submit to the Committee and in the normal course, the Committee will determine the fee by taking into consideration the relevant aspects and therefore, it is not necessary to remit the matter to the Committee.
12. Onbehalf of Petitioner schools, it was submitted that earlier while fixing the fee structure, the Committee did not take into account the actual expenditure incurred by the schools and thereby leaving huge deficit and in such view of the matter, suitable directions be issued to the Committee.
13. Earlier, in a batch of Writ Petitions [W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch 2012 Writ Law Reporter 489 : CDJ 201.MHC 2161], by the common order dated 03.05.2012 (one of us was a member Justice R.Banumathi), the orders passed by the Committee headed by Justice K.Raviraja Pandian were set aside. Written submission was filed by the Government stating that expenses incurred in respect of (i) salary to teaching and non-teaching staff; (ii) employees provident fund; (iiii) contribution to employees State Insurance Corporation; (iv) gratuity; and such other head shall be considered based on the bills produced. Elaborately referring to the written submissions filed by the learned Advocate General, in the order dated 03.5.2012, in Paragraphs 88 to 117, we have formulated certain guidelines for determination of fee structure in respect of unaided non-minority educational institutions.
14. Learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the questionnaire format hosted in the website for determining the fee structure from the forthcoming academic years 2013-14 and submitted that the said questionnaire format is based on the factors indicated in Section 6 of Act 22 of 2009 and also the guidelines laid down by this Court in the order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch and W.P.No.32053 of 2012 dated 22.01.2013 and that it is for the Petitioner schools to submit the filled up questionnaire format. Since the questionnaire format is stated to be based on the factors indicated in Section 6 of Act 22 of 2009 and also the guidelines laid down by this Court, no further direction need be issued except observing that the Committee shall afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner schools to substantiate their claim of actual expenditure and other factors as indicated in Section 6 of Act 22 of 2009 and also the guidelines laid down by this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc. batch dated 03.05.2012 and W.P.No.32053 of 2012 dated 22.01.2013.
15. Having regard to the submissions, it is for the Petitioner schools to submit the filled up questionnaire. While considering the filled up questionnaire format submitted by the Petitioner schools and determining the fee structure for the Petitioner schools, the Committee shall keep in view the submissions of the Petitioner schools regarding the expenditure said to have been incurred by them. The Committee shall afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner schools to produce materials to substantiate the filled up questionnaire format.
16. With the above observation, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs. bbr To 1. The Secretary, School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, Chennai-6.
3. The Special Officer, Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, PTA Building, DPI Campus, Chennai-6.
4. The Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri