Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sir,
You are aware that after the challenge to the Tamil Nadu Schools
(Regulations of collection of fees) Act, 2009 before the Madras High Court,
a Judgement was delivered and the scope of the said Act was discussed
threadbare by the said decision. It may be stated here that in Para 20 of
the judgment rendered in the said batch of Writ Petitions in W.P. No. 627
of 2010 and other Writ Petitions, the Madras High Court was pleased to
hold as under.
b.After the receipt of the proposal from the concerned institution, the
Committee has to verify as to whether the fee proposed by the
Private School is justified and it does not amount to profiteering or
charging of exorbitant fee.
c.In case the Committee is of the view that the fee structure proposed
by the institution appears to be correct, taking note of the various
facilities provided and that there was no profiteering or collection of
exorbitant fee under the guise of capitation fee, it has to approve
the fee structure.
d.In case the Committee is of the view that the fee structure forwarded
by the institution is exorbitant and that there is an element of
profiteering, the Committee has to determine some other fee.
4. This is the very first requirement before proceeding to approve the fee
structure for the institution but presently not even a single institution
was asked to furnish the proposed fee structure, on the contrary what
was asked was the income and expenses statement for the past three
years which in no way would enable the committee to arrive at the fees
structure for the next three years, which is also not the primary
function of the committee. Unless and until the proposed fees structure
is received from the institution the committee cannot proceed to arrive
at a fees structure and any such proceeding can only become farce. It
may also be stated here that the fee ought to have been approved will
in advance to enable to schools a smooth functioning, whereas the fee
is sought to be determined at the last minute without even giving a
breathing time for the schools to work out the fee proposal and their
financial budgeting. Only because of undue hurry fee proposal could
not be decided in the proper perspective leaving the schools in a
dismay.
7. The Committee in fact had taken unilateral decisions in almost all the
cases without providing any opportunity of hearing and the present
procedure adopted by the Committee it is per se not legal. The ratio
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhis (1978) 1 SCC 248 clearly provides that any
administrative are quasi judicial decision arrived at without hearing the
affected person is illegal and liable to be struck down by the Court of
Law.
8. In Maharastra, the Bansal Committee looked into the very same issue
of determining the fees structure, but the combination of committee
included representatives of the schools and the said committee had
elaborately discussed the various factors to be taken into consideration
before determining the fees structure. The Honble Supreme Court had
only emphasized the determination of fee structure by each of the
institution and there should not be any profiteering by the institution.
9. Therefore kindly consider the following aspects and the rules may be
suitably amended forthwith,
2. S. Re;juk;>
nrayhsh;>
nkl;hpf; kw;Wk; nkl;hpf; Nkdpiyg; gs;spfs;
Nkyhsh;fs; rq;fk;>
B 46, 1tJ FWf;F njU>
kfhuh[h efh;>
jpUney;Ntyp.- 11
3. S. mUs;uh[;>
nrayhsh;>
jQ;rhT+h; khtl;l nkl;hpf; kw;Wk;
nkl;hpf; Nkdpiyg; gs;spfs;
Nkyhsh;fs; rq;fk;>
fhkuh[; njU>
fpof;Fj; njU>
jQ;rhT+h; - 613 001
ngWeh;>
Iah>