Disposed

C.Raja v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC1 Jun 2023WP/7854/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions under Art. 226 for action against a private school for collecting excess fees over the regulatory limit and for refund. The High Court directed the Chief Educational Officer to investigate, hold an enquiry, and pass orders on merits after affording opportunity to the petitioner and school.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Educational Officer to consider representation, conduct enquiry, and pass orders on merits within six weeks after providing opportunity to both parties.

C.Raja Vs The Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.7854 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.7854 of 2020 And

¶7

W.M.P.No.9269 of 2020

C.Raja

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government

¶12

Office of Principal Secretary, Secretariat,

¶13

Chennai.

¶14

2.The Principal Secretary

¶15

Tamil Nadu Board for Matriculation Schools, DPI Complex,

¶16

Chennai – 600 006.

¶17

3.The Director

¶18

DPI Complex,

¶19

Tamil Nadu Board Matriculation School, Chennai – 600 006.

¶20

4.The Chief Educational Officer Office of Chief Educational Officer, Collector Office Building, Salem.

¶21

5.The District Educational Officer Office of District Educational Officer, Govt. Higher Sec. School Building, Edappadi.

¶22

1/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.7854 of 2020

¶25

6.The Management Monfort Matriculation School, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. ... Respondents

¶26

Prayer:

¶27

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against the 6th respondent for collection of excess fees over and above the fees fixed by the fee determination committee for all standard of classes in the 6th respondent school under Section 3 and 7 of The Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fees) Act, 2009 and refund the amount collected in excess of the fees fixed by the fee determination committee.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarajan

¶29

For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish for R1 to R5 Additional Government Pleader Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan for R6

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Authorities to take appropriate action against the sixth respondent for collection of excess

¶32

2/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.7854 of 2020

¶35

fees over and above the fees fixed by the Fee Determination Committee for all standard of classes in the sixth respondent School under Sections 3 and 7 of The Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fees) Act, 2009 and refund the amount collected in excess of the fees fixed by the Fee Determination Committee.

¶36

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner admitted his daughter in LKG for the academic year 2019 – 2020 in the sixth respondent School and at the time of admission, the sixth respondent collected fees over and above the fees fixed by the Fee Determination Committee, from the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner made representation dated 05.07.2019 to the official respondents seeking to take action against the sixth respondent and for refund of the excess amount collected by the sixth respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent vide proceedings dated nil.07.2019, forwarded the petitioner's representation to the fourth respondent for taking appropriate action and the fourth respondent vide proceedings dated 13.08.2019 forwarded the same to the fifth respondent for taking appropriate action, however, no action was taken by the official respondents. Hence, this Court may issue direction to the fourth

¶37

3/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.7854 of 2020

¶40

respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2019 and to conduct enquiry inbetween the petitioner and the sixth respondent and to pass appropriate orders, after providing opportunity to the petitioner and the sixth respondent.

¶41

3.Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that the sixth respondent has not collected any amount over and above the fees fixed by the Fee Determination Committee and the representation made by the petitioner is frivolous one, however, this Court may direct the fourth respondent to give opportunity to the sixth respondent before passing orders on the petitioner's representation.

¶42

4.In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2019, to conduct enquiry inbetween the petitioner and the sixth respondent and to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to the petitioner and the sixth respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

4/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.7854 of 2020

¶46

5.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶47

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

01.06.2023

¶49

pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No

¶50

¶51

1.The Secretary to Government Office of Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶52

2.The Principal Secretary

¶53

Tamil Nadu Board for Matriculation Schools, DPI Complex,

¶54

Chennai – 600 006.

¶55

3.The Director

¶56

DPI Complex, Tamil Nadu Board Matriculation School, Chennai – 600 006.

¶57

4.The Chief Educational Officer Office of Chief Educational Officer, Collector Office Building, Salem.

¶58

5.The District Educational Officer Office of District Educational Officer, Govt. Higher Sec. School Building, Edappadi.

¶59

6.The Management Monfort Matriculation School, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶60

5/6

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.P.No.7854 of 2020

¶63

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

¶64

W.P.No.7854 of 2020 And W.M.P.No.9269 of 2020

¶65

01.06.2023

¶66

6/6

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Raja v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Raja v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanthakumar. N Vs The Home Secretary

M/s. Maxivision Eye Hospitals Private Limited Vs The Commissioner

Pushparaj.K Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Johnpaul.B Vs The TamilNadu Controller

Sudalai Vs The Addl Divisional Enginner

K.Raman Vs The District Collector