Disposed

Yogesh Remchandra Pathre and Others v. the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC19 Aug 2023PIL/37/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a uniform fee structure for all schools matching government rates. The Court held that the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 provides the exclusive framework for resolving fee disputes, allowing variance based on school facilities.

What did the court decide?

No order for uniformity granted; petitioners directed to approach Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee under the Act of 2011.

Yogesh Remchandra Pathre and Others Vs the Deputy… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 PIL-37-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No.37 of 2021

¶4

1.Shri Yogesh Ramchandra Pathre,

¶5

Aged about 40 years,

¶6

Occupation Business,

¶7

Plot No.39, Shiv-Abhilasha Apartment,
Flat No.101, N.I.T. Layout,

¶8

Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur.

¶9

2.Shri Kailash Dinkar Choudhari,

¶10

Aged about 48 years,

¶11

Occupation Business,

¶12

R/o 406, Honey-Archana Complex,
Untkhana, Nagpur.

¶13

3.Shri Madan Shamraoji Kohale,

¶14

Aged about 49 years,

¶15

Occupation Business,

¶16

R/o 15, Jairam Towers,

¶17

Revati Nagar, Nagpur.

¶18

4.Smt. Trupti Tushar Deshpande,

¶19

Aged about 44 years,

¶20

Occupation Legal Practitioner,

¶21

R/o Ramaji Wadi,

¶22

New Shukrawari, Nagpur.

¶23

5.Shri Dhananjay Neelkanthrao Choudhari,

¶24

Aged about 50 years,

¶25

Occupation Legal Practitioner,
R/o 89, Sudarshan Nagar,

¶26

New Narsala Road, Nagpur.

¶27

2 PIL-37-2021.odt

¶28

6.Shri Ishwar Anand Kolhe,

¶29

Aged about 47 years,
Occupation Business,
R/o Jawahar Nagar,

¶30

Manewada, Nagpur.

¶31

7.Smt. Ratna Jayant Kulkarni,

¶32

Aged about 49 years,

¶33

Occupation Service,

¶34

R/o Hanuman Nagar,

¶35

Nagpur.

¶36

8.Shri Vishal Chandrashekhar Doifode,

¶37

Aged about 45 years,

¶38

Occupation Business,

¶39

R/o Manewada, Nagpur.

¶40

9.Jagrut Palak Samiti (un-registered)

¶41

(Under Order 1 Rule 8 representative petition through the same), through Vide President Yogesh R. Patre, R/o Plot No.39, Flat No.101,

¶42

N.I.T. Layout, Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur.

¶43

… Petitioners

¶44

Versus

¶45

1.The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

¶46

2.The Collector, Office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.

¶47

3.Government of Maharashtra,

¶48

through its Secretary, Education Department,

¶49

Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

¶50

3 PIL-37-2021.odt

¶51

4.School of Scholars,

¶52

Atre Layout, Khamla,
Nagpur,

¶53

through its Director.

¶54

… Respondents

¶55

Shri K.B. Ambilwade, Counsel for Petitioner.

¶56

Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos.1 to 3.

¶57

Shri P.D. Meghe, Counsel for Respondent No.4.

¶58

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

¶59

Date when arguments were heard : 26th July, 2023 Date when the order was pronounced : 19th August, 2023

¶60

P. C. :

¶61

1.By the present proceedings initiated in public interest, the
petitioners seek to raise a grievance with regard to discrimination in
the fee structure from one school to another school and pray that such
fee structure should be as per the fee structure prevalent in
Government schools. It is further prayed that there should be
uniformity of the fee structure from Kindergarten to the College level.

¶62

2.According to the petitioners, they have formed an Association
under the name and style of ‘Jagruk Palak Samiti’ to raise grievances in
the matter of increase in fees in each academic year from Kindergarten
to XIIth Standard- H.S.C. The Association has entered into various
communications with the Authorities including the Deputy Director of
Education as well as the Collector, Nagpur. It is stated that imparting
of education and receiving the same being a fundamental right of the
students, there ought to be no discrimination in the fee structure of

¶63

4 PIL-37-2021.odt

¶64

the private schools on par with the Government schools. Instances of
increase in the fee structure especially at the school run by the
respondent No.4-Society is sought to be highlighted.

¶65

3.In the reply filed by the Collector, it has been stated that the
matter falls within the purview of the Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur and the said Authority is competent to look
into the grievances raised by the petitioners. The Deputy Director of
Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur has also filed her affidavit making
a reference to the provisions of the Maharashtra Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 (for short, ‘the Act of 2011’)
to submit that the said legislation has been brought into force to
regulate the collection of fee by the educational institutions in the
State of Maharashtra and to provide for matters connected thereto.
The provisions of the said Act are comprehensive and insofar as the
private unaided schools and the colleges are concerned, they have
autonomy in the matter of administration of such schools including
the admission of students and the fee to be charged. The grievances
of the petitioners could be considered under the Act of 2011.
Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Versus State of Karnataka
and others[(2002) 8 SCC 481].

¶66

Affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No.4-Society
denying all adverse allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated
that it is governed by the provisions of the Act of 2011 and that the fee

¶67

5 PIL-37-2021.odt

¶68

as well as revision in the amount of fee are undertaken in accordance
therewith.

¶69

4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have
perused the material on record. We have also gone through the
decisions in (i)Society for Un-Aided P. School of Rajasthan Versus
Union of India and another[AIR 2012 SC 3445], (ii)Arun Digambar
Joshi Versus State of Maharashtra and others[2013(5) Mh.L.J. 419],
(iii)Arun Shivaji Chavare Versus Padmakar Rama Chavare and others
[2015(1) Mh.L.J. 728], (iv)Uran Education Society and others Versus
State of Maharashtra and others[2015(4) Mh.L.J. 920] and
(v)Nitin Ravindra Bansod and others Versus Government of India and
others[2017(5) Mh.L.J. 954]. We find that the Act of 2011 has been
enacted with a view to provide for the regulation of collection of fees
by educational institutions in the State of Maharashtra and also to
provide for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The
Act of 2011 seeks to regulate fees in Government schools, aided
schools, private unaided schools as well as permanently unaided
schools. The Act is comprehensive in nature and is a Code in itself. It
provides for constitution of a Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee
that is empowered to consider various grievances pertaining to
imposition of fees including excess fees. The Act contemplates
formation of Parent-Teachers Association in an educational institution
and also prohibits collection of fees in excess of what has been fixed or
approved under the Act of 2011. After a Parent-Teachers Association

¶70

6 PIL-37-2021.odt

¶71

is formed, an Executive Committee is thereafter constituted. The
Executive Committee can consider the issue of fixation of the fee
structure. An appeal from the decision of the Executive Committee on
increase in the fee by the Management can be preferred before the
Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee. The factors to be considered
while deciding the fee structure including the provision of instalment
in paying the same has been provided. The Act of 2011 is thus a Code
in itself and it also contains penal provisions for breach of the same.
Since the Act is made applicable to all educational institutions in the
State of Maharashtra, we find that the recourse can be had to the said
Act in the matter of regulation of fee structure and grievances in that
regard.

¶72

5.The autonomy in the matter of fixation of fee structure has
been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation and others (supra). Such autonomy however is required
to be exercised in the light of the Act of 2011 which requires
involvement of the Parent-Teachers Association even on the aspect of
determination of the fee structure. The over-all control in this regard
vests with the State Government or the Central Government, as the
case may be, in view of Section 5 of the Act of 2011. The facilities and
standard of imparting instructions are likely to differ from school to
school. It is also likely that the amenities provided by one school may
be distinct from the amenities provided by another school. For this
reason, it is possible that the fee structure in one school may be at

¶73

7 PIL-37-2021.odt

¶74

variance with the fee structure of another school. Various factors are
required to be taken into consideration while determining the fee
structure of a school. It is for this reason that the provisions of the Act
of 2011 would be liable to be taken recourse to in case there is a
dispute with regard to imposition of fees. The modality for resolution
of such issue has been provided in the Act of 2011. The grievance in
that regard is therefore required to be raised and adjudicated in the
manner prescribed therein. We are therefore of the view that there
cannot be uniformity of the fee structure as sought by the petitioners
in all schools for classes from Kindergarten to Junior College. The
same is likely to differ from school to school for various reasons.

¶75

6.Hence for the aforesaid reasons, though no direction for having
uniformity in the fee structure of all schools at par with Government
schools as sought by the petitioners cannot be granted, we may only
observe that in case of any grievance in the matter of application of
fee structure, the provisions of the Act of 2011 being comprehensive in
nature, the same provides for the mode of the resolution of such
issues. The petitioners would be free to take recourse to the Act of
2011 in this regard.

¶76

7.The present proceedings are disposed of with the aforesaid
observations.

¶77

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶78

Digitally Signed By LANJEWAR :PRASHANT DEWAJI LANJEWAR Signing Date:19.08.2023

Yogesh Remchandra Pathre and Others v. the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Remchandra Pathre and Others v. the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valmik Rajaram Garudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjaybhau Jayram Kamble Vs the Chief Secretary State of Maharashtra and Others

Shantanu Vilas Nandgude Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Kiran Dattatraya Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra Thru the Public Works Dept. Thru Gp High Court and Ors.

Ujwal Govind Keskar and Anr. Vs State of Maharastra and Ors.

Ranjeet Sampatrao Raskar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Chief Secretary Thr. the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Jaiprakash Bawiskar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation, through the Director General

Dr. Rajendra Ramchandra Chaudhari Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Mumbai through Secretary and Another

Smt. Anusaya Balkisan Bhende Since (Died) Thr. Her Lrs. Harishchandra Uttamrao Ingale Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Amravati and Others

Abdul Kalim Abdul Hafiz Sheikh Vs Government of Maha., Thr. Its Planning Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Sandhya Prakash Todewar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Chandrapur and Others

Rahul S/O Ramnarayan Madankar and Another Vs the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai Thr. Its Manager and Others

The Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur Vs M/S. Excellent Betelnut Products Pvt. Ltd.,Mumbai, Thr. Its Director