Supreme Court Allows School’s Appeal
The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal filed by Apeejay School and restored the Trial Court order directing recovery of hiked fees, subject to the outcome of the decision of the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee. The Apex Court also made it clear that there is no ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts under Haryana School Education Act, 1995 insofar as the recovery of fees is concerned, which are found to be reasonable.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the unaided private school against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria referred to Haryana School Education Act, 1995 and said, “Section 22 of the Act also ousts the jurisdiction of the civil courts only in matters where the Government or its officers have been empowered to adjudicate upon. The recovery of fees by an institution from the students or parent, is not a power conferred on the Government or its authorities by the statute or the rules prescribed. We hence are of the opinion that there is no ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts insofar as the recovery of fees, which are found to be reasonable.”
Senior Advocate HL Tiku represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Santosh Kumar Tripathi represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
Till the year 2008-09, the students had paid the fees as notified by the school. It was the hike notified by the school in the academic year 2009-10, which led to the dispute raised on the allegation of unreasonable and excessive fees having been charged. The appellant school, filed suits for recovery of money, against the students and their parents, which recovery was of the fee hike notified to the parents and their wards, which the parents failed to remit. The suits were decreed by the trial court, and in the appeals filed by the defendants, minor modifications were made to the decretal amount and the interest levied, which was reduced from 12% to 6%.
The trial court directed the recovery subject to the outcome of the decision of the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC) established under the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 and Haryana School Education Rules, 2003. In appeal, the Appellate Court directed a refund of the entire amount if the FFRC found in favour of the defendant students. The plaintiff’s Review Petition was dismissed, against which Second Appeals were filed.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana interfered with the concurrent findings on the ground that the rules provided an alternate remedy, which read with Section 22 of the Act, specifically ousted the jurisdiction of the civil courts in fee hike matters. The Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court were filed against this Order of the High Court.
Reasoning
Referring to Rules 158A and 158B, the Bench observed, “The power conferred on the Committee is confined to a complaint regarding levy of capitation fee or charging of excessive fees which can be raised only by a parent or a student. There can be no claim raised by the school before the FFRC to enforce payment of fees by a student or a parent. There can hence be found no express or implied ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court.”
The Bench was of the view that the rejection of the Review filed by the plaintiff-school was wrong. The students/parents were paying the fees as notified earlier, and insofar as the excessive fees are concerned, the FFRC was empowered to look into the same and decide on the justification for the same. As per the Bench, the Review Petitions ought to have been allowed since what was sought to be reviewed was an error apparent on the face of the record.
“Insofar as the order in Second Appeal, we have already found that the ouster of jurisdiction based on which the trial court order, to the extent confirmed in appeal, was set aside, is improper. Especially, since there can be no ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court found from the Act and Rules; either express or implied”, it said, while allowing the appeal.
The Court was informed by the Senior Counsel for the appellant that the audit of the school in respect of the subject academic years had been completed by the FFRC and no illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness was found in the hike proposed and notified by the school. The Bench thus restored the order of the trial court and modified it only to the extent of the interest granted, which has been held to be at 6% as modified by the appellate court. “…we make it clear that the trial court’s order subjecting the decree of recovery to the decision of the FFRC, would suffice insofar as protection against any excessive levy of fees”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Appeejay School v. Dhriti Duggal (Neutral Citation: 2025 Insc 925)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Hl Tiku, Advocate Yasmeet Kaur, Aor Vikas Kumar, Advocates Arun Kumar, Jayati Arora, Karan Gulwade, Samiksha Jain, Kedar R. Seludkar, Yasmeet Kaur, Vikas Kumar, Vikas Kumar, Vikas Kumar, Vikas Kaura Kedar R Seludkar, Arun Kumar, Hitesh Wadhwa, M/S. Corporate legal partners
Respondent: Senior Advocate Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocates Khagesh B. Jha, Khagesh B Jha, Shikha Sharma Bagga, Aor Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi, Advocate Mini Kaushik, Aor Lokesh Kumar Choudhary Aor