JUDGMENT : J.B.PARDIWALA : Writ Petition (PIL) No.79 of 2012 By this writ-application in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioner, in his capacity as the President of a registered trust, viz. “Jagega Gujarat Sangharsh Samiti, has prayed for the following reliefs: “13. A. Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction/ guidelines, directing the respondent authorities, more particularly respondent no.1 to prevent the practice of huge and exorbitant fees scheduled for admissions in the primary schools in contravention of the government circular dtd.18/2/2011 under the different head of admission fees refundable and non-refundable deposits as capitation fees which are barred as per Govt. policy and circular. B. Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction/ guidelines, directing the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate steps in accordance with the terms, conditions and provisions stated in the State Govt. Circular dtd. 18/02/2011 emphasizing requisite penalties against the schools contravening the compliance of the state resolution. C. Be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to frame the control committee for scheduling fee structure as per the State policy for the primary education of all respective Board of School Education in Governing several and all factors in accordance with the State policy. D. Be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s which may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” The case made out by the petitioner may be summed up thus : The Education Department of the State Government has framed a policy relating to the fees recoverable by schools imparting primary education vide Circular dated 18th February, 2011. The Circular prohibits recovery of any Capitation fee/ Security Deposit or any sort of donation or any other amount except the specified fees from the student or his guardian. In spite of such guidelines issued by the State Government, the respondent nos.5 to 8 are demanding capitation fees at the time of admission of students in the school. According to the petitioner, the private respondents have failed to comply with the Government Resolution referred to above, and the action on the part of the private respondents is directly in contravention of the provisions of “The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009”. According to the petitioner, the private respondents have failed to comply with the Government Resolution referred to above, and the action on the part of the private respondents is directly in contravention of the provisions of “The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009”. In such circumstances, it is the case of the petitioner that the private respondents who are running schools should be directed to strictly adhere to the Government Resolution of the State Government and appropriate steps be taken against the private respondents for demanding capitation fee at the time of admission. Stance of the Private Respondents : The allegations leveled in the petition are not true and correct. The entire petition is based on the purported resolution of the State Government dated 18th February 2011 which has no legislative mandate and, therefore, such resolution has no legal efficacy or any binding effect. The respondent being a private non-aided school, is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Assuming for the moment without admitting that the Circular issued by the State Government has some statutory force, even then there is no violation of the Circular. What is prohibited from being charged while admitting the student is a fee which is not notified by the school as a fee. If any fee is notified and is being charged from all students, the same would not fall within the ambit of “Capitation Fee”. In such circumstances referred to above, it is prayed that there being no merit in the petition, the same deserves to be rejected. We have heard Ms.P.J.Joshi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.K.Jani, the learned Government Pleader assisted by Mr.Vandan Baxi, the learned AGP appearing for the State respondents, Mr.A.J.Yagnik, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.5 Anandniketan School and Mr.Mihir Thakore, the learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent nos.7 and 8, viz. Delhi Public School and Zydus School. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is, whether there is any violation of the Government Resolution dated 18th February 2011 issued by the Education Department of the State Government at the end of the private respondents. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is, whether there is any violation of the Government Resolution dated 18th February 2011 issued by the Education Department of the State Government at the end of the private respondents. According to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, the private respondents who are running schools are guilty of demanding capitation fee at the time of admission of the students in the school. Since the only question raised in this petition is regarding 'capitation fee', it is necessary to consider the definition of the same as prescribed under Section 2(b) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Section 2(b) defines 'capitation fee' as under : “capitation fee” means any kind of donation or contribution or payment other than the fee notified by the school;” Section 13 of the Act 2009 prohibits collection of any capitation fee. Section 13 reads as under : “13. No capitation fee and screening procedure for admission.-(1) No school or person shall, while admitting a child, collect any capitation fee and subject the child or his or her parents or guardian to any screening procedure. (2) Any school or person, if in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) - (a) receives capitation fee, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten times the capitation fee charged; (b) subjects a child to screening procedure, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees for the first contravention and fifty thousand rupees for each subsequent contraventions.” The plain reading of the definition of the term 'capitation fee' indicates that the school is prohibited from receiving or demanding any kind of donation or contribution or payment other than the fee notified by the school. The materials on record indicate that all the schools who are made party respondents in the present petition have notified the fees. The fees are being collected as prescribed and notified by the individual schools in the prospectus. The petitioner has not been able to show anything to us that the schools are demanding any particular amount other than the fees which are notified. The whole object of Section 13 of the Act 2009 is to prevent any under-table dealings by the school authorities. The petitioner has not been able to show anything to us that the schools are demanding any particular amount other than the fees which are notified. The whole object of Section 13 of the Act 2009 is to prevent any under-table dealings by the school authorities. However, all the schools before us are unaided schools. There is no other complaint against them so far as the provisions of the Act 2009 are concerned. We are of the view that no case has been made out by the petitioner for intervention on the premise that the respondents are collecting capitation fee in violation of the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act 2009. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby rejected. No order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the main writ-application, the connection Civil Application also stands disposed of. Writ Petition (PIL) No.78 of 2012 This writ-application has also been filed in the nature of a public interest litigation seeking the following reliefs: “(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction/guidelines, directing the respondents authorities, more particularly respondent no.1 to prevent the practive of huge in the primary schools in contravention of the government circular dtd. 18/02/2011 under the different loopholes carried on way of interview admission to be continued from pre-primary other relevant issues of the said Government resolution. (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction/guidelines, directing the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate steps in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions stated in the State Govt. Circular dtd. 18/02/2011 emphasising requisite penalties against the schools contravening the compliance of the State resolution. (C) Be pleased to direct the respondents authority to frame the committee for scheduling admission redressal as per the State policy for the primary education in governing several and all factors in accordance with the State policy. Circular dtd. 18/02/2011 emphasising requisite penalties against the schools contravening the compliance of the State resolution. (C) Be pleased to direct the respondents authority to frame the committee for scheduling admission redressal as per the State policy for the primary education in governing several and all factors in accordance with the State policy. (D) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s which may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” The main grievance raised in this writ-application is that the respondent no.5 – Maharaja Agrasen School at Ahmedabad is guilty of violation of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act 2009 as the school authorities are screening the child and his or her parents or guardians before admitting the child to the school. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.5, it has been stated that the child or the parents of the child is not subjected to any interview, but only height and weight of the child is being measured including the mental alertness based on some scientific method. In the course of the hearing of this petition, Mr.N.V.Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5, made a statement at the bar that he has instructions from his client to submit before the Court that the school authority has stopped taking the interview of the child or his or her parents and no screening procedure of any nature is adopted. No measurement of height or even the weight is being undertaken. Mr.Gandhi further submitted, upon instructions from his client, that there shall not be any violation of any of the provisions of the Act 2009 or the rules framed thereunder so far as the admission of the child in the school is concerned. In view of such statement made by Mr.Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 School, we do not propose to go further in the matter and close this public interest litigation. The writ-application is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the main writ-application, the connection Civil Application also stands disposed of.