Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 697 (GUJ)

VINAY N. PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA

2005-10-04

K.M.MEHTA

body2005
K. M. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) VINAY N. Pandya, Secretary of New Era Senior secondary School Parents Association and others, petitioners have filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus, writ in nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No. 1, the union of India, Ministry of Human Resourse Development and Central Board of Secondary Education to constitute a regulatory authority or body consisting of experts in the field of education, accountancy and related fields and frame regulatory measures to check commercialisation of education, on profiteering by private Unaided Self-finance Educational institution running Schools from K. G. to Standard-12 all over India. " Petitioners further prayed that existing fee-structure and steep hike in the fee for the academic year 2005-2006 by the New Era Senior Secondary School and Balwadi, respondent No. 6, (hereinafter referred to as school) and the gujarat New Era Education Trust, respondent No. 7 (referred to as trust) amounts to profiteering, imposition of capitation fee and commercialisation of education, and therefore, in violation of law laid down by the Honble the supreme Court of India in the matter of T. M. A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , reported in 2002 (8) SCC 481 , Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2003 (6) SCC 697 and Modem school v. Union of India, reported in 2004 (5) SCC 583 and arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory disproportionate, unfair, unjust, unreasonable, violative of conditions of lease-deed executed between respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and respondent-Municipal corporation of Vadodara, violative of Trust objectives stated in the approved scheme in view of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and therefore, violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners prayed for further prayers in this behalf. " ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under :"1 Petitioners are parents and representative of parents of students of School and Balwadi which is run by respondent No. 7, registered Charitable Trust engaged in the field of education. The respondent School is a Private Unaided self-finance School imparting education to students from K. G. to Standard-12. ""2 As stated above, the Municipal Corporation of Vadodara has given on lease to the respondent-Trust a piece of land admeasuring about 11460 sq. The respondent School is a Private Unaided self-finance School imparting education to students from K. G. to Standard-12. ""2 As stated above, the Municipal Corporation of Vadodara has given on lease to the respondent-Trust a piece of land admeasuring about 11460 sq. meters in T. P. Scheme No. 123, Nizampura at Vadodara bearing Final Plat No. 430. A resolution to this effect was passed in the year 1978 and lease-deed was executed between the respondent-Corporation and the respondent-Trust on 4-12-1985. Condition No. 11 in the lease-deed categorically states that after the construction of the school is over, the Trust shall not demand any building fund or fund for any other purpose by donation or otherwise. If it is found out that the Trust is demanding such fund, then the lease-deed shall be cancelled and the possession of the land will be taken back. And no amount of compensation or damage in any nature will be paid to the Trust. The petitioner state that the amount of lease to be paid by the respondent Trust as stated in the lease-deed is Rs. 1240/- per year. " ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners in the petition that for the academic year 2003-2004, the fee charged by the school was Rs. 10,740/- per year. For the academic year 2004-2005, the same was increased to Rs. 13,220/- i. e. 23% and in the present academic year the fee has been hiked to 20,370/- i. e. 54%. Thus, it is a contention of the petitioners that in last two years the total rise in the tee is Rs. 9,630/- and as compared to the previous academic year the rise in the fee is Rs. 7,150/ -. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that in the name of development and other nomenclature, the school, respondent No. 6 and Trust, respondent No. 7 have continued to impose fees on the students which is directly in contravention of the lease-deed which has been referred earlier. In the present academic year, development fund of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed on every student. Looking to the number of students, more than 1250, studying in the respondent-School the amount sought to be collected is Rs. 62,50,000/- (Sixty two lakhs fifty thousand only ). This is in the backdrop of the fact that the respondent-Trust has reserved fund of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed on every student. Looking to the number of students, more than 1250, studying in the respondent-School the amount sought to be collected is Rs. 62,50,000/- (Sixty two lakhs fifty thousand only ). This is in the backdrop of the fact that the respondent-Trust has reserved fund of Rs. 5 crores with them and every year income from the interest on securities and otherwise is more than Rs. 18 lakhs. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have indulged into profiteering and imposition of capitation fee. This is nothing but commercialisation of education by a Charitable Trust like respondent No. 7. In the trust-deed, one of the objectives of the respondent-Trust is to serve every economic class and social strata of the society by imparting education amongst the students. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 6 School imparts education to the students of K. G. to Standard-12. It is recognized by affiliating to respondent-Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as board), as the school is Private Unaided Self-finance Educational Institute. ( 7 ) THE petitioner-Association comprises of parents of more than 700 students of the school. The main purpose of forming Association is to collectively represent grievances of the member parents against the school management and the Trust which runs the school. ( 8 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are parents of respective students who are taking education in the respondent school. ( 9 ) IN the petition, it was stated that respondent No. 1 is Union of India, ministry of Human Resources Development represented by its Secretary. This ministry looks after the field of education in the entire country, as it is known. It also supervises, being the supreme authority, the respondent-Central Board of Secondary Education. Respondent No. 2 is a Central Board of Secondary education which is an independent and autonomous Board which has given reorganization to and to whom the respondent school is affiliated it is stated that respondent No. 2 is a state being the agency or instrumentality of the state as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. ( 10 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 is a State of Gujarat represented by its respective secretary representing Department of Education. ( 10 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 is a State of Gujarat represented by its respective secretary representing Department of Education. Respondent No. 7 is registered in the office of respondent No. 4, the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is the statutory responsibility of respondent No. 4 to see that respondent No. 7 charitable Trust engaged in the charitable activities of education acts in accordance with the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the Trust approved Trust-deed stating the objective of the Trust as well. ( 11 ) THE petitioners state that the respondent Trust owns the respective No. 6 school that was established and set up on the land given on lease to it by the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Vadodara. The respondent No. 6 School has been established for last more than 15 years. It is recognized by and affiliated to the respondent-Central Board of Secondary Education. It imparts education in English to more than 1250 students from K. G. to Standard-12. Thus, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 do not depend at all on Government aid to conduct the classes in the school and the school is being run exclusively from the tuition fees and other charges paid by the students from time to time and as and when demanded by the respondent School Management. ( 12 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 6, Private Unaided institution enjoys greater autonomy in the matter of adminisration and considerable freedom in evolving fee-structure. In other words, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 do not have rigid fee-structure and are not under control, supervision and administration of the State as much as private aided educational institutions are concerned. However, what is abundantly prohibited for such self-finance institution is : (a) profiteering, (b) capitation fee, (c) commercialization of education, (d) acting against the public and national interest. In other words, right to establish and administer a private educational institution is a fundamental right, as the education now is accepted as an occupation, guaranteed in Art. 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India and same is subject to reasonable instructions envisaged in Art. 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. ( 13 ) THE petitioners state that the respondent school management has its own fee-structure based on their own rationals and reasons to which parents are not aware about. ( 13 ) THE petitioners state that the respondent school management has its own fee-structure based on their own rationals and reasons to which parents are not aware about. Every year the respondent school management keeps on increasing fee which includes tuition fees and other fees without giving any reason whatsoever. Every year there is a substantial hike in the fee under one or other heads. The respondent school management being private institution, though engaged in charitable activity of education, leaves no choice for the parents in this respect. Every year, so far, the parents have paid fee though the hike was not at all acceptable to them and the same has been extremely burdensome. ( 14 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that imposition of hike in the fee by the respondent school management is always unilateral and without any effective, meaningful and wider consultative process. In other words, the parents are not actually and effectively taken into confidence by the respondent school management before any such steps are taken. Therefore, there has always been lack of transparency and mutual trust in this regard. ( 15 ) PETITIONERS state that the academic year 2004-2005 came to an end on 12-3-2005. On 11-3-2005 took place a cursory meeting of so-called Parent-Teachers association, which always plays to the tune of the respondent school management. 4-5 parents chosen by the respondent school management remained present in the same. Among other issues, a decision of the respondent school management to hike fee was ratified. However, the minutes of the meeting does only mentions fee hike and does not state the amount. The reasons given for hike in the fee are as under : (i) Introduction of Science Park (ii) Use of technology in terms of up-gradation of computers and increasing the number of existing computers, (iii) Number of Labs to be increased for teaching, learning process and as resource place, (iv) Maintaining quality staff. ( 16 ) COMPARATIVE statement regarding fees of various schools is alleged to have been placed in the meeting. However, the question remains whether comparative hike in the fee by the other schools have been placed on record or not and whether their respective balance-sheets suggest that they are : indulging in profiteering and/or imposing capitation fee. ( 16 ) COMPARATIVE statement regarding fees of various schools is alleged to have been placed in the meeting. However, the question remains whether comparative hike in the fee by the other schools have been placed on record or not and whether their respective balance-sheets suggest that they are : indulging in profiteering and/or imposing capitation fee. ( 17 ) IT was further stated by the petitioners that the school uniform of the respondent No. 6 school is distinct and cannot be used if a student is transferred to any other school in the middle of the term. In all, the books, stationery as well as school uniform has cost around Rs. 2,000/- per student. ( 18 ) THE hike of fees in school from year to year which I have stated earlier is purely based on whims and caprices of the respondent school management without there being any rhyme or reason. Petitioner further submits that in comparison to the academic year 2003-2004, the respondent school management has hiked fee of almost Rs. 10,000/ - in the present academic year 2005-2006. If the hike in the fee is viewed from the perspective of different heads, then the picture that generates from same from same is as under : (1) Tuition fee is hiked from Rs. 440/- to Rs. 780-/ for one quarter of period. For a whole year it comes to Rs. 1,400/ -. (2) Lunch fee is hiked from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 350/- for owner quarter of period. For a whole year it comes to Rs. 1,400/ -. The students are offered the junk food. (3) Medical fee is hiked from Rs. 60/ to Rs. 120/- for one year. Whereas medical check-up has not taken place even once in the last two years. (4) Parents Teachers Association fee now being collected is Rs. 40/- per student for holding couple of such meetings having so-called representative of parents. In view of the same, petitioners state that numerically if one counts the hike in the fee, it is under : (1) Hike in the total fee in last two years is Rs. 9,630/- per student. The total fee collected from approximately 1250 students x Rs. 9,630/- comes to Rs. 1,20,37,500/ -. (2) Hike in the fee in the last one year is Rs. 7,1507 -. The total fee collected from approximately 1250 students x Rs. 7,150 comes to Rs. 9,630/- per student. The total fee collected from approximately 1250 students x Rs. 9,630/- comes to Rs. 1,20,37,500/ -. (2) Hike in the fee in the last one year is Rs. 7,1507 -. The total fee collected from approximately 1250 students x Rs. 7,150 comes to Rs. 89,37,500/ -. ( 19 ) THE petitioners submit that out of these fees, as on 31-3-2004, the amount of land fund is Rs. 92,54,0007- where as the land of the respondent school has been allotted by the respondent corporation on a yearly rent of rs. 1,240/ -. ( 20 ) THE income only from the amount of interest per year is around Rs. 18 lakhs. This means that considering the interest rate of 7. 5%, the respondent- trust has reserve fund of more than Rs. 3 crores. ( 21 ) THE details of regular rise in the total fund is as under :