| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/965277 |
| Court | Chennai High Court |
| Decided On | Jan-28-2013 |
| Judge | THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI |
| Appellant | U.R.C. Palani Ammal Matriculation Higher Secondary School |
| Respondent | State of Tamil Nadu |
28. 01.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN Writ Petition No.33058 of 2012 U.R.C. Palani Ammal Matriculation Higher Secondary School (12192) rep. by its Correspondent C.Devarajan, Sengodampalayam, Thindal, Erode-638 012. .. Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, rep. by its Member Secretary, PTA Building, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chenna”
006. .. Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 3rd Respondent made against the Petitioner school under Section 6(4) of the Act 22 of 2009 dated 27.05.2011 and set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to consider review petition dated 01.10.2012 filed by the Petitioner school in terms of the order dated 03.05.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi Addl. Govt. Pleader (Edn.) ORDER R.BANUMATHI,J Challenging the order 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), Writ Petitioner, unaided private school has filed this Writ Petition.
2. Writ Petitioner - U.R.C.Palaniammal Matriculation Higher Secondary School, an unaided Private School imparting education in and around Erode District with qualified teaching and non-teaching staff. In pursuance to the direction issued by the First Bench in P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu v. Federation of Association of Private Schools in T.N. (2010(5) CTC 721), the Writ Petitioner school submitted its 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 27.05.2011 fixing the fee structure for the three academic; years i.e., 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.
3. Contending that the actual expenditure as per the auditors statement has not been taken into account and the actual salary paid to the teachers together with statutory payments and other financial commitments has 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, Writ Petitioner school has filed the Writ Petition.
4. Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned counsel for Writ Petitioner submitted that determination of fee by the Committee is inadequate and it is not in tune with the infrastructure facilities available in the school and quality of education imparted. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that the salary and other allowances for teaching and non-teaching staff for the financial year ending 31.03.2010 as per the audited accounts is Rs.1,51,45,993/-. But the Committee has considered the expenses for teaching and non-teaching staff as Rs.96,93,360/- and there is a deficit of Rs.54,52,633/-. Learned counsel submitted that the amount allowed for other sundry expenses at the rate of Rs.700/- per student is Rs.12,30,600/- and the amount allowed as surplus for growth and development of the school (5% according to location) is Rs.6,72,393/- and put together the amount allowed as sundry expenses and development is Rs.19,02,993/-. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that the fee proposed by the school is Rs.2,86,83,750/- and the fee fixed by the Committee is Rs.1,49,78,750/-, leaving deficit of Rs.137 lakhs and making it difficult to run the school. Learned counsel would submit that sundry expenses, surplus for development and expenditure on maintenance allowed by the Committee are very low. It is the case of Writ Petitioner that it had filed a Review Petition dated 01.10.2012 to re-determine the fees based on the audited documents and the same was not considered by the Committee. Learned counsel contended that the order passed by the Committee dated 27.05.2011 would stand final and binding on the school for three academic years i.e. till 2012-2013 and that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. Drawing our attention to the order passed in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch, learned counsel submitted that the Writ Petitioner school is similarly placed school 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 03.5.2012.
6. We have heard Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) for Respondents. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that Writ Petitioner school is placed on similar footing as that of the other school in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Committee has started its exercise for fixing the fee structure for the schools in the State of Tamil Nadu from the academic year 2013-2014 and therefore, the matter could be remitted back to the Committee to consider the matter for fixing the fee structure from the academic year 2013-2014. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that since the present academic year 2012-2013 is nearing end, the fee fixed by the Committee in its order dated 27.05.2011 cannot be re-examined.
7. Earlier, in a batch of Writ Petitions [W.P.No.8489 of 2012 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. In our earlier order (03.05.2012), we have also referred to the expenditures on administration; other miscellaneous expenses and maintenance, depreciation of building, furniture, fixtures equipments; land and lease rent and other expenses and surplus for development.
8. 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.
9. The operative portion of the order in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch (Paragraphs 152 to
154) reads as follows:- "152. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders in all the writ petitions are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the School Fee Determination Committee for consideration of the matters afresh. Fee structure approval form shall be given to Writ Petitioner Schools calling upon them to produce the details and documents required to be furnished. All the Writ Petitioner Schools shall propose the fee structure afresh with fresh or additional materials/Audit statements showing the expenditure and income. The Committee shall give personal hearing to each of the Writ Petitioner Schools and also afford reasonable opportunity to all the Writ Petitioner Schools and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of December 2012.
153. In respect of unaided Non-Minority Educational Institutions, the School Fee Determination Committee shall keep in view the guidelines in Para Nos.88 to 117 and 152 of this order. For the reasons stated in Para Nos.109 and 110, all the unaided Non-Minority Educational Institutions shall be entitled to surplus for development i.e., Village and Town Panchayats at 10%; Municipalities and District Headquarters at 12=% and Corporations at 15%.
154. For the reasons stated in Para No.111, for Infrastructure Grading, there shall be an increase in fee - 7=% to 10% depending on the availability of the infrastructure in the Schools." 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for Writ Petitioner, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Committee for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the guidelines issued in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch.
11. Onbehalf of Respondents, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Committee has started its exercise for fixing the fee structure for private unaided schools in the State of Tamil Nadu from the academic year 2013-2014 and the matter could be remitted back to the Committee to re-fix the fee in the light of the above guidelines only from the academic year 2013-2014.
12. In the result, the impugned order dated 27.05.2011 passed by Committee is set aside and this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the earlier order dated 03.05.2012 in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 etc. batch (2012 Writ Law Reporter 489 : CDJ 201.MHC 2161). We request the Committee to consider the matter in the light of the above guidelines for fixing the fee structure for Writ Petitioner school from the academic year 2013-2014. It is made clear that till the final order passed by the Committee, the Writ Petitioner school shall continue to collect only the fee fixed by the Committee by its order dated 27.05.2011. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs. bbr To 1.The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.Member Secretary, The Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, PTA Building, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chenna”
00.