Interim Order 27.08.2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

27.08.2009

Present: Mr.Ramashankar and Mr.Rakesh Mehta, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr.Arvind K. Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Mr.P.D. Gupta and Mr.Kamal Gupta, Advocates for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Manish Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and 3.

W.P(C) No.10801/2009

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 seeks more time to file the
reply to show cause notice. Reply to show cause notice be filed within two
weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has pointed out that the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner to the counter affidavit of respondent No.1 stipulates that the parents are ready to pay the enhanced fee under the heads, tuition fee, admission fee, caution money and development charges, annual charges without enhancement, however, the main bone of contention is the charges of activity fee, art and craft orientation fee, computer fee and orientation fee.

In view of the averments made by the petitioner, the fee as has been indicated by them be paid by the parents without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

Lists on October 7, 2009.

August 27, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.

HC Interim Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
1
W.P(C) No.10801/2009

The Summer Fields School Parents Association (Regd)
. Petitioner
Through
Mr.Rama Shankar, Advocate Versus

The Summer Field School and others
. Respondents
Through
Mr.P.D.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms.Mamta, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM:
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR


O R D E R
12.08.2009

The grievance of the petitioner is that the school has started demanding
the amounts under various heads which are not permissible under the provisions
of Delhi School Education Act and the rules framed therein.
Issue show cause notice to respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued.
Mr.Gupta accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms.Mamta accepts notice
on behalf of respondent No.2 and seek time to file the replies. Replies be filed
within 10 days. Rejoinders, if any, before the next date.
Issue notice to respondent No.3 by ordinary process and registered AD
post on petitioner taking steps within two days, returnable on 27th August,
2009.
Notices dasti as well.
CM No.9880/2009
Issue notice to the respondents. Mr.Gupta accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.1 and Ms.Mamta accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and
seek time to file the replies. Replies be filed within 10 days.
Issue notice to respondent No.3 by ordinary process and registered AD
post on petitioner taking steps within two days, returnable on 27th August,
2009.

Any action taken by the respondents shall be subject to the outcome of
the present writ petition till the next date of hearing.


August 12, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
k

W.P.(C.) No.10801 /2009 Page 1
of

SC says private schools have no right to hike fees

New Delhi, Aug. 7 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that private unaided schools do not have the right to hike fees.

Hearing a review petition filed by the Action Committee for Unaided Private Schools seeking reconsideration of a 2004 apex court verdict, the Supreme Court said that only the government can regulate private school fees.

The apex court upheld the 2004 verdict, authorizing the Director Education to take a final decision in fee hikes being implemented by schools on the ground of implementing pay commission recommendations for teachers.

While filing the review petition, the unaided private schools’ action committee had also argued that the 2004 judgment was contrary to provisions of the Delhi School Education Act.

Today’s verdict is a major victory for parents of school children who have been opposing private schools’ move to hike fees periodically.

The SC in its 2004 verdict had also endorsed the Director Education’s move to put a freeze on the fee structure and halt transfer of funds from schools to the parent society. (ANI)

Now, private schools under CAG scanner

TNN 31 July 2009, 11:52pm IST
NEW DELHI: If it was tough for you to figure out those hidden charges under the guise of charges for development, building, swimming pool and library in your child's school fee bill, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) will now demystify it for you. On Friday, CAG said it has decided to audit accounts of unaided private schools of Delhi. The parents in Delhi who took to the streets after the recent steep fee hike by schools in the name of Sixth Pay Commission are sure to rejoice over the CAG decision. The powerful private school lobby in the Capital is, however, bound to resist it. This year accounts of only 25 schools will be taken up for review and in the next round more schools will be subjected to the audit which will be cyclical in nature. The audit will look into land use by schools, examine their fee structure and also ascertain if they cater to poor children or not as prescribed by Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The decision, CAG said, has been taken under the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the Delhi High Court order in Delhi Abhibhawak Mahasangh vs Union of India case. Delhi HC had said that "inspection of schools, audit of accounts and compliance with provisions of the Act and rules by private recognised unaided schools could have prevented the present state of affairs. The tution fee cannot be fixed to recover capital expenditure to be incurred on the properties of the society.'' Apart from the HC order, CAG cited provisions of Delhi School Education Act and said the law mandates it to audit accounts. DSEA says the managing committee of every recognised private school shall file audited financial and other returns with the director. The rules under DSEA Act also make it compulsory for schools to maintain accounts of fees and contributions collected by it as per government rules. Another rule says the accounts can be audited by auditors authorised by the director and also by officers authorised by the CAG. Delhi HC had in its order said the question of commercialisation of education and exploitation of parents by individual schools could be authoritatively determined on thorough examination of the accounts and other records of each school.