AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J. - Petitioners are all students studying from Classes I to X in different schools of Bangalore City and grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions is that respective schools and their management have been charging exorbitant fees contrary to extant Rules and Regulations and as such, they have sought for suitable directions being issued to respondent-Authorities. Prayer sought for by the petitioners in each of these petitions are as under:
W.P. Nos. 30981 to 31133 and 31522 of 2016:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent-Director to examine the books of accounts of 4th respondent-school to ensure, they do not indulge in the commercialisation of education and to regulate their fee structures in accordance with norms and rules of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 to ensure they earn only reasonable surpluses and charge students fees as per the provisions and rule of Karnataka Education Act.
(ii) Issue directions or any order directing the respondents to give admissions to all the petitioners to the next promoting classes forthwith.
W.P. Nos. 31135 to 31148 and 31149 of 2016:
(i) Direct the 2nd and 7th respondents to take immediate action on 9th respondent for demanding excess fees against to the fixed fees by the Government, in the interest of equity and justice.
(ii) Direct the respondents 1 to 7 to initiate disciplinary action against the Management of respondent 9 for their illegal demanding of donation, excess fees, other fees under different heads violating the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Certain Fees and Donations) Rules, 1999, in the interest of equity and justice.
W.P. Nos. 30739 to 30839 of 2016:
(i) Issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 7 to look into the process of admission of the petitioners to be taken place as per the Karnataka Education Act under relevant rules in the 9th respondent-school, in the interest of equity and justice.
(ii) Direct the 2nd and 7th respondents to take immediate action on 9th respondent for demanding excess fees against to the fixed fees by the Government, in the interest of equity and justice.
(iii) Direct the respondents 1 to 7 to initiate disciplinary action against the Management of respondent 9 for their illegal demanding of donation, excess fess, other fees under different heads violating the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Certain Fees and Donations) Rules, 1999, the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995, in the interest of equity and justice.
W.P. Nos. 30840 to 30913 of 2016:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents 2 and 7 to consider the representations given by the petitioners vide Annexures-C, D and E, dated 21-5-2016 and Annexure-F, dated 11-5-2016 in admitting the petitioners to the 9th respondent-School in the interest of equity and justice.
(ii) Issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 7 to look into the process of admission of the petitioners to be taken place as per the Karnataka Education Act under relevant rules in the 9th respondent-School, in the interest of equity and justice.
(iii) Direct the 2nd and 7th Respondents to take immediate action on 9th respondent for demanding excess fees against to the fixed fees by the Government, in the interest of equity and justice.
(iv) Direct the respondents 1 to 7 to initiate disciplinary action against the Management of respondents 8 and 9, for their illegal demanding of donation, excess fee, other fees under different heads violating the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Certain Fees and Donations) Rules, 1999, in the interest of equity and justice.
The sum and substance of their contentions as well as grounds urged in support of pleas advanced in respective writ petitions are that petitioners-students are studying in the schools as mentioned or indicated in the respective writ petitions and management-schools in which the petitioners are studying, are charging exorbitant fees and to their whims and fancies and contrary to fees fixed under Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification. Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995 (for short, ''1995 Rules'') and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Certain Fees and Donations) Rules, 1999 (for short, ''1999 Rules''). It is their further grievance that despite submitting representations to various Authorities, no steps have been taken by them and these schools, where petitioners are studying on account of non-payment of such exam fees demanded by these institutions, petitioners-students have been prevented from attending the classes and in some of the cases they have also been denied admission to higher classes to which they have been promoted and they are unable to meet unjust demand of respondents-schools. On these �rounds, they are seeking for directions being issued as prayed for in the respective writ petitions.
Statement of objections have been filed by respective schools and they have denied all the averments made in the writ petitions except to the extent expressly admitted therein. It is also contended by them that in view of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others AIR 2003 SC 355 (1) State cannot regulate either the admission process or collecting tuition fees thereunder. They would also submit that very fact of application of Act itself is under challenge, this Court need not go into other aspects namely relating to enforcement of 1995 Rules of 1999 Rules. They would also submit that Circulars issued by the Authorities to regulate payment of fees was under challenge before this Court and same having been set aside, matter was pending before Hon''ble Apex Court and Hon''ble Apex Court by order dated 11-2-2010 has set aside the order passed by this Court and remanded the matter to this Court tea adjudication afresh. Hence, they are seeking for rejection of writ petitions.
Respondent 8 in W.P. Nos. 31135 to 31148 and 31149 of 2016 has specifically raised a plea that issue regarding charging of fee based on Rule 10 of 1999 Rules has been challenged as arbitrary, perverse and unconstitutional and so also Rule 4 of 1999 Rules, In the said writ petitions an interim order has been passed in favour of petitioner on 13-6-2014 permitting the petitioner-management therein i.e., respondent 8 herein to charge fees as prescribed by them and as indicated in Annexure-N therein and as such his Court need not go into the said aspect particularly when there is an order on stay in favour of petitioner and said matter having been referred to Division Bench and in the light of interim order passed in W.P. Nos. 18809 to 18840 of 2012 in favour of petitioners on 26-11-2014 permitting the petitioners therein to charge fees as prescribed and those matters having been referred to Division Bench, consequently W.P. No. 21825 of 2014 filed by respondent 8 would also automatically be listed along with the matter referred for Division Bench. Hence, he prays for dismissal of these writ petitions on the ground that issue is at large in the said writ petitions.
He would draw the attention of the Court to an impleading application filed by Karnataka Students Parents Jagrati Vedike in the said writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 21825 of 2014 to contend that very same applicant is 15th petitioner herein and the fact of application being filed by said Vedike having been suppressed, an interim order has been obtained in present writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos. 31135 to 31148 and 31149 of 2016 on 1-6-2016 and as such he submits that respondent 8 has not only sought for vacating die interim order dated 1-6-2016 but has also prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of 15th petitioner being guilty of suppression of fact. He would also submit that on account of such conduct, petitioner 15 may be mulcted rib exemplary costs. On these grounds, respondent 8 herein has sought tor dismissal of writ petitions.
State Government has filed a memo on 9-6-2016 enclosing therewith two documents namely notice dated 6-6-2016 issued to respondent 5 and report dated 3-6-2016 jointly submitted by Block Education Officer and Deputy Director indicating thereunder that Apollo School, Hegganahalli is collecting excess fee therein and Sri Krishna International Public School, Hegganahalli, is collecting less than what is prescribed under extant Rules i.e., 1995 Rules and 1999 Rules. Subsequently, on 22-6-2016 an affidavit of Sri H.B. Manjunath, Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bangalore North District, Bangalore, also came to be filed indicating thereunder that complaint lodged before Deputy Commissioner by the students alleging that schools are collecting excess fees from the parents, came to be forwarded to him for taking appropriate steps in the matter and has stated a Committee was constituted consisting of Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Education Officer, Bangalore North and Subject Inspector, who is of the cadre of Headmaster of High Schools and they had inspected three (3) schools namely: (i) Krishna International School; (ii) Vidyanikethan Public School; and (iii) Apollo School on 27-4-2016, 17-6-2016 and 1-6-2016 respectively and after verifying the Admission Register found that children were not given admission because they could not pay excess fee demanded by the respective schools. It is also indicated in the affidavit that said Committee then and there instructed such School/Management to admit the students who were there at the time of inspection to the schools and who had not been admitted and it is also stated that Apollo Public School refused admission on the ground that issue with regard to excess fee is pending before this Court, in W.P. No. 21825 of 2014. It is also stated that Committee on verification found that certain schools were collecting excess fees contrary to Rules and as such, they have stated that notices have been issued on 9-6-2016 and oral directions have been issued by the State to take action against those schools, which are collecting excess fee contrary to Act and Rules and has stated on oath that action has been taken against respondent-schools who are collecting excess fee contrary to Act and they have also been contemplating to withdraw the recognition of those schools who are not complying with the Rules, insofar as, collecting fees in compliance with the Act.
I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths Sumana Hegde, Siddamallappa and N.P. Amruthesh, learned Advocates appearing for petitioners-students, Sriyuths M.P. Srikanth, S. Basavaraju, G.R. Mohan and M.I. Arun, learned Advocates appearing for respondents-Managements and Smt. Promodhini Kishan, learned HCGP appearing for State. Perused the records.
It is the contention of learned Advocates appearing for petitioners that respondents-schools in which petitioners-students are studying are demanding excess fee and are charging fees to the their whims and fancies and not adhering to prescribed fees as prescribed under 1995 Rules and 1999 Rules and in few instances where students have been promoted to higher class, have been denied admissions to the promoted class on the ground that students/parents were not agreeing to pay fees demanded by respective Institutions. Hence, they contend that directions are not issued to respondent-schools to comply with the Rules prescribed under 1995 Rules and 1999 Rules, which has been enacted by virtue of Section 48 of Karnataka Education Act and also directions to respondent-authorities to implement the Rules effectively, then, hapless parents and students would be put to insurmountable difficulties and future of students would be at stake. Hence, they pray for suitable directions being issued to respondents-Authorities. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the following judgments:
(i) T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2003 SC 355(1);
(ii)Modern School v. Union of India and Others (2004) 5 SCC 583.
Per contra, learned Advocates appearing for respondents namely, schools and/or management, which are running schools in question, have contended that issue regarding charging of fee is at large before Division Bench particularly in view of one of petitioners having challenged the vires of Rule 4 of 1995 Rules and 1999 Rules and as such, they have prayed that said issue need not be examined as it is likely to prejudice their rights. They have also submitted by reiterating the contentions raised in their respective statement of objections that very applicability of Education Act to Institutions is also under challenge in one of the petitions and as such, they have prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. On facts they would submit that none of the schools are charging excess fee and it is only a hue and cry raised by a Vedike proclaiming itself to espouse the cause of students, who in disguise is attempting to blackmail respondents-schools and institutions/management and the very fact that said Vedike had applied for being impleaded in writ petition pending before this Court i.e., W.P. No. 21825 of 2014 raising similar grounds and suppressing said facts before this Court in the present writ petitions, would clearly indicate that petitioners have not come to Court with clean hands and as such, this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction should not extend any relief to such persons whose hands are tainted. They would also submit that Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2003 SC 355(1) has held that respondents-institutions being unaided schools, enjoy the autonomy and they would be entitled to charge fee commensurate with their requirements, needs keeping in mind the developmental activities envisaged for future development of their institutions and as such, they have prayed for present writ petitions being dismissed.
Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records as well as Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and 1995 Rules and 1999 Rules, it would emerge as under:
10.1 A bare reading of the preamble of Education Act, 1983 would indicate that same has been enacted for providing planned development of educational institutions, inculcation of healthy educational practise, discipline and control of educational institutions, maintenance and improvement in standards of education and better organisation or with a view to fostering the harmonious development of the mental and physical faculties of students and cultivating a scientific and secular outlook through education.
10.2 Chapter VIII deals with admission of students to recognised institutions and scales of fees etc. Section 48 falling under Chapter VIII regulates collection of fees or charges or donations or tuition or other payments. The right to levy, collect and charge fees, donations and other payments has not been taken away by the Act and it is only regulated under the Act. Section 145 of the Act empowers appropriate Government to make Rules, to carry out the purposes of the Act and sub-section (2) of Section 145 would clearly indicate that without prejudice to the generality of foregoing power of State, rules that may be made by State Government can provide for all contingencies under sub-section (2), which also includes regulating fees, levy or collection of fees in education institutions vide Section 145(2)(xix).
It is in furtherance of such power vested, State has formulated the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995 and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Certain Fees and Donations) Rules, 1999. A bare reading of these two Rules as a whole would dearly indicate that object with which said Rules have been introduced is for the purposes of ensuring transparency, openness and accountability in the matter of collection of notified fees for admission of students to unaided institutions and to prevent diversion of funds collected for said purposes other than school development.
Section 48 of the Act regulates collection of fees or charges or donations or other payments. This regulation of fees, donations cannot be construed as infringing upon the right of institutions to run such institutions, that too without any fetters. It does not amount to interference in the administration of institutions by the State, but it would only supplant or act as a regulating feature. Though partially dicta laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 2078 came to be overruled subsequently in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in AIR 2003 SC 355(1) and affirmed in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others (2003) 6 SCC 697, the observations made by Apex Court that commercialisation of education cannot and should not be permitted, has remained undisturbed.
Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in AIR 2003 SC 355(1) while examining several issues raised thereunder and in particular, issues relating to admissions and fee structure relating to "professional college" has held that private unaided institutions are entitled to maximum autonomy, as right of appointment, disciplinary powers, admission of students and fee structure. It has been held to the following effect:
"61. In the case of unaided private schools, maximum autonomy has to be with the management with regard to administration, including the right of appointment, disciplinary powers, admission of students and the fees to be charged. At the school level, it is not possible to grant admissions on the basis of merit. It is no secret that the examination results at all levels of unaided private schools, notwithstanding the stringent regulations of the governmental authorities, are far superior to the results of the Government maintained schools. There is no compulsion on students to attend private schools. The rush for admission is occasioned by the standards maintained in such schools, and recognition of the fact that State run schools do not provide the same standards of education. The State says that it has no funds to establish institutions at the same level of excellence as private schools. But by curtailing the income of such private schools, it disables those schools from affording the best facilities because of a lack of funds. If this lowering of standards from excellence to a level of mediocrity is to be avoided, the State has to provide the difference which, therefore, brings us back in a vicious circle to the original problem, viz., the lack of State funds. The solution would appear to lie in the States not using their scanty resources to prop up institutions that are able to otherwise maintain themselves out of the fees charged, but in improving the facilities and infrastructure of State run schools and in sub-sidizing the fees payable by the students there. It is in the interest of the general public that more good quality schools are established; autonomy and non-regulation of the school administration in the right of appointment, admission of the students and the fee to the charged will ensure that more such institutions are established. The fear that if a private school is allowed to charge fees commensurate with the fees affordable, the degrees would be "purchasable" is an unfounded one since the standards of education can be and are controllable through the regulations relating to recognition, affiliation and common final examinations."
After judgment in T.M.A. Pai''s case various State Governments and educational institutions understood the majority judgment in different perspectives. Different statutes/enactments which were governing the issue was being enforced and same came up for consideration in Islamic Academy of Education and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2003)6 SCC 697, which was in the background of "professional colleges" fees structure and first question which was formulated by Apex Court for being answered related to "whether educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure?" and it was answered by holding that majority judgment in T.M.A. Pai�s case has already answered said issue and it is very clear that there can be no fixation of rigid fee structure by Government and each institute/institutions must have the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds to run such institution and to provide facilities for the benefit of students. At paragraph 56 of T.M.A. Pai''s case it has been categorically laid down that decision on fees to be charged must necessarily be left to private educational institutions and it reads as under:
"56. An educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education of the type made available by the institution. Different courses of study are usually taught by teachers who have to be recruited as per qualifications that may be prescribed. It is no secret that better working conditions will attract better teachers. More amenities will ensure that better students seek admission to that institution. One cannot lose sight of the fact that providing good amenities to the students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other infrastructure costs money. It has, therefore, to be left to the institution, if it chooses not to seek any aid from the Government, to determine the scale of fee that it can charge from the students. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that we live in a competitive world today, where professional education is in demand. We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private parties who do not seek any governmental aid. In a sense a prospective student has various options open to him/her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play. The decision on the fee to be charged must necessarily be left to the private educational institution that does not seek or is not dependent upon any funds from the Government."
In Islamic Academy''s case referred to supra after considering rival contentions Apex Court formulated following questions for its consideration and it reads as under:
"6. In view of the rival submissions the following questions arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure?
(2) Whether minority and non-minority educational institutions stand on the same footing and have the same rights?
(3) Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to fill in their seats, to the extent of 100%, and if not, to what extent? and
(4) Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to admit students by evolving their own method of admission?"
Issue regarding fee fixation was relating to Question No. 1, which was as noticed therein related to technical education and medical education in the country and it is in this background, reiterating the view expressed in T.M.A. Pai�s case, Apex Court has held that in order to give effect to judgment of T.M.A. Pai''s case respective State Governments/concerned Authority should set up a Committee of a retired Judge, who shall be nominated by Chief Justice of State and other member, who should be a Chartered Accountant and a representative of Medical Council of India or All India Council for Technical Education, depending on the type of institution, to be a member of said Committee. It was also directed that Secretary of State Government in charge of Medical Education or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall be the Member Secretary of the Committee and it was specifically made clear by Apex Court that said Committee will be at liberty to approve fee structure and to propose some other fee, which will be charged by the institution and fee fixed by the Committee would be binding for a period of three (3) years and at the end of such period, institution would be at liberty to apply for revision. It was also made clear that once the Committee fixes the fee, no institute/institution would be entitled to charge either directly or indirectly any other amount fixed as fees and reserved liberty to Government as well as appropriate Authorities to frame appropriate regulations, if not already framed and also reserved liberty to penalise such of the institutions, which was found of charging capitation fees or profiteering under the guise of charging of fees.
Thus, it can be seen that what was clarified in Islamic Academy''s case was with reference to engineering and medical colleges in the State. Subsequently, Apex Court in the case of Modern School v. Union of India and Others reported in (2004)5 SCC 583 following T.M.A. Pai''s case was examining the correctness or otherwise of the judgment rendered by High Court of Delhi, which was with reference to Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and it came to be held by the Apex Court in Modern School''s case that in the matter of determination of fee structure, unaided educational institutions exercise of a greater autonomy is required, as they are like any other citizen carrying on any occupation and as such they are entitled to reasonable surplus, for development and expansion of institutions. It was further held that economic forces have to play a role in fee fixation and after noticing in T.M.A. Pai�s case, Apex Court had directed State Government to set up a Committee with regard to fixation of fee structure relating to engineering and medical colleges and it is in this background, further direction came to be issued for effective implementation of Delhi School Education Act, 1973. It has been held by the Apex Court in Modern School referred to supra to the following effect:
"16. The judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation''s case was delivered on 31-10-2002. The Union of India, State Governments and educational institutions understood the majority judgment in that case in different perspectives. It led to litigation''s in several Courts. Under the circumstances, a Bench of five judges was constituted in the case of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka so that doubts/anomalies, if any, could be clarified. One of the issues which arose for determination concerned determination of the fee structure in private unaided professional educational institutions. It was submitted on behalf of the managements that such institutions had been given complete autonomy not only as regards admission of students but also as regards determination of their own fee structure. It was submitted that these institutions were entitled to fix their own fee structure which could include a reasonable revenue surplus for the purpose of development of education and expansion of the institution. It was submitted that so long as there was no profiteering, there could be no interference by the Government. As against this, on behalf of the Union of India, State Governments and some of the students, it was submitted, that the right to set up and administer an educational institution is not an absolute right and it is subject to reasonable restrictions. It was submitted that such a right is subject to public and national interests. It was contended that imparting education was a State function but due to resource crunch, the States were not in a position to establish sufficient number of educational institutions and consequently the States were permitting private educational institutions to perform State functions. It was submitted that the Government had a statutory'' right to fix the fees to ensure that there was no profiteering. Both sides relied upon various passages from the majority judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation''s case. In view of rival submissions, four questions were formulated. We are concerned with the first question, namely, whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure. It was held that there could be no rigid fee structure. Each institute must have freedom to fix its own fee structure, after taking into account the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. They must be able to generate surplus which must be used for betterment and growth of that educational institution. The fee structure must be fixed keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities available, investment made, salaries paid to teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or betterment of institution subject to two restrictions, namely, non-profiteering and non-charging of capitation fees. It was held that surplus/profit can be generated but they shall be used, for the benefit of that educational institution. It was held that profits/surplus cannot be diverted for any other use or purposes and cannot be used for personal gains or for other business or enterprise. The Court noticed that there were various statutes/regulations which governed the fixation of fee and, therefore, this Court directed the respective State Governments to set up a Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State to approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee which could be charged by the institute."
.......
"20. We do not find merit in the above arguments. Before analysing the rules herein, it may be pointed out, that as of today, we have Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). As stated above, commercialisation of education has been a problem area for the last several years. One of the methods of eradicating commercialisation of education in schools is to insist on every school following principles of accounting applicable to not-for-profit organisations/non-business organisations. Under the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, expense is different from expenditure. All operational expenses for the current accounting year like salary and allowances payable to employees, rent for the premises, payment of property taxes are current revenue expenses. These expenses entail benefits during the current accounting period. Expenditure, on the other hand, is for acquisition of an asset of an enduring nature which gives benefits spread over many accounting periods, like purchase of plant and machinery, building, etc. Therefore, there is a difference between revenue expenses and capital expenditure. Lastly., we must keep in mind that accounting has a linkage with law. Accounting operates within the legal framework. Therefore, banking, insurance and electricity companies have their own form of balance sheets unlike balance sheets prescribed for companies under the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, we have to look at the accounts of non-business organisations like schools, hospitals, etc. in the light of the statute in question."
"25. In our view, on account of increased cost due to inflation, the management is entitled to create a Development Fund Account. For creating such development fund, the management is required to collect development fees. In the present case, pursuant to the recommendation of the Duggal Committee, development fees could be levied at a rate not exceeding 10% to 15% of total annual tuition fee. Direction No. 7 further states that development fees not exceeding 10% to 15% of total annual tuition fee shall be charged for supplementing the resources for purchase, up-gradation and replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipments. It further states that development fees shall be treated as capital receipt and shall be collected only if the school maintains a depreciation reserve fund. In our view, Direction No. 7 is appropriate. If one goes through the Report of the Duggal Committee, one finds absence of non-creation of specified earmarked fund. On going through the Report of the Duggal Committee, one finds further that depreciation has been charged without creating a corresponding fund. Therefore, Direction No. 7 seeks to introduce a proper accounting practise to be followed by non-business organisations/not-for-profit organisation. With this correct practise being introduced, development fees for supplementing the resources for purchase, up-gradation and replacements of furniture and fixtures and equipments is justified. Taking into account the cost of inflation between 15-12-1999 and 31-12-2003 we are of the view that the management of recognised unaided schools should be permitted to charge development fee not exceeding 15% of the total annual tuition fee."
Keeping these facts in mind when the extant Rules framed by State by virtue of power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 145 are perused, it would indicate that under 1995 Rules in general and in particular Rule 10 it would indicate the manner, mode method and quantum of fee to be collected by educational institutions from pre-primary to degree level is prescribed. Rule 10 reads as under:
"10. Collection of fees. - (1) The procedure for collecting fee in all classes from pre-primary up to the degree level in all recognised educational institutions shall be open, transparent and accountable.
(2) The fees to be collected shall be classified as. -
(a) Term Fees. -
(b) Tuition Fees
(c) Special Development Fees
(3) (a) Term Fees.-
(i) No term fees shall be collected from pre-primary and lower primary students;
(ii) In upper primary and higher classes, term fees shall be collected at the rate specified by the State Government or the Competent Authority authorised in this behalf through a notification and shall be collected only for the items listed in tire said notification;
(iii) Term fees collected by the recognised educational institutions for each term from the students shall be subject to exemptions made by the State Government from time to time in this regard.
(b) Tuition fees.-
(i) In case of Government and recognised private aided institutions tuition fees shall be collected only from the failed students at the rates specified by the State Government or the Competent Authority authorised in this behalf;
(ii) In case of recognised private unaided institutions tuition fees may be collected from all the students which shall be commensurate with the expenditure incurred towards salary of staff and the quality of education provided by the institution.
(c) Special Development fees. - .........
(i) In the case of a recognised aided educational institution up to a maximum of rupees five hundred per year;
(ii) In the case of a recognised unaided educational institution up to a maximum of Rs. 600/- per year.
(4) Every recognised private educational institution shall maintain a brochure showing the details of items of fees and the amount of fees prescribed for each item. The same shall be displayed prominently on the notice board of the educational institution for the information of parents and students.
(5) The fee specified shall not be varied to the disadvantage of the parents in the middle of the academic year on any account.
(6) Details of specified fee together with the brochure shall be sent to the Departmental Authorities for information. The specified fee may be collected in cash if the amount of fee is less than Rs. 1000/- and if such amount is Rs. 1000/- and above, either by cash or Demand Draft at the option of the parent. It shall be the duty of the Head of the Institution to issue official fee receipts for ail fees received and it shall be delivered immediately on production of casts or Demand Draft as the case may be to the person making the payment. The receipt shall however be issued in the name of the student concerned.
(7) While specifying the fee structure, provision shall be made to make payment of the fee in monthly, quarterly, half-yearly instalments or in one lump-sum at the option of the student or his parent.
(8) The amount of fee collected amount under different items shall be accounted as per specified procedure. The items due to be remitted to the State Government under term fees and tuition fees should be remitted immediately after collection and the remaining amount pertaining to items of fees under the term fees shall be kept in the official Personal Deposit Account of the Head of the Institution. The Personal Deposit Account shall be opened for this purpose in any Post Office or any Nationalised Bank located in the surrounding of the institution. All receipts on account of tuition fee (in respect of recognised private unaided institutions) and the special development fees shall be kept in tire official joint account of the Headmaster and the Secretary/President of the managing committee. All the amount of fees collected shall be accounted and the accounts shall be produced before the Competent Authority for verification at the time of visits and inspections. The Head of the Institution shall be responsible for sale custody of funds, its proper accounting and for production of the accounts for verification before the concerned authorities.
(9) Compelling students to attend any tutorial class, payment of fees, beyond the normal working hours of a class in a recognised educational institution is prohibited."
A bare reading of above Rule would indicate that fee to be collected is classified under three categories or terms namely, Term Fees, Tuition Fees and Special Development Fees and Term Fees as indicated in sub-rule (3)(a) prescribes that no institutions would be entitled to collect a term fee from pre-primary and lower primary students, sub-clause (ii) of sub-rule (3)(a) would indicate that for upper primary and higher primary classes, term fees hall be collected at the rate specified by the State Government or the Competent Authority authorised in that behalf as may be indicated in the notification and for the items listed in the said notification only. Term fees collected by the recognised educational institutions for each term from the students can be subject to exemptions made by the State Government from time to time in this regard as per sub-clause (iii) of sub-rule (3)(a). Likewise, under sub-rule (3)(b)(ii) recognised private unaided institutions are entitled to collect tuition fee from all the students, which shall be commensurate with the expenditure incurred towards salary of staff and quality of education provided by the institutions. Sub-rule (3)(c) provides for Special Development Fees being collected from each student a sum of Rs. 600/- by a recognised unaided educational institution. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 mandates that every recognised private educational institution should maintain a brochure indicating the details of items of fees and amount of fees prescribed for each item and it ought to be displayed prominently on the notice board of the educational institution for the information of students and parents. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 also places an embargo on the institution not to vary the fees specified in the middle of academic year on any account to the disadvantage of parents. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 mandates that institutions are required to forward the details of specified fee along with the brochure to the departmental authorities for information. It also enables the unaided educational institution to collect fee in cash if it is less than Rs. 1,000/- and if it is more than Rs. 1,000/-, either by cash or by demand draft at the option of the parents. Head of the institution is required to issue receipts for all fees received immediately on payment of such amount/amounts. Sub-rule (7) enables the parents or students as the case may be, to opt for making payment of fee either monthly, quarterly, half yearly or yearly. Sub-rule (8) would indicate that all receipts on account of tuition fee in respect of recognised private unaided institutions is to be kept in the official joint account of Headmaster and the Secretary/President of the managing committee and should be accounted and accounts should be produced before Competent Authority for verification at the time of visit or inspection and Head of the Institution has been made responsible for safe custody of funds its proper accounting for verification before the concerned authorities.
Rule 12 of 1995 Rules would indicate that every recognised unaided educational institution should constitute a Parent Teacher Committee within 31) days from the commencement of academic year. The mode, manner and method in which said Committee is to meet, to discuss and take up the subjects for consideration is found in sub-rules (2) to (12) of Rule 12. One of the primary functions of Parent Teacher Committee as indicated in sub-rule 5(a) of Rule 12 is to redress grievance of students and their parents if any. Rule 19 would also enable any parent who is aggrieved by violation of any of the provisions of these Rules, to file a petition in writing to the District Level Education Regulating Authority constituted under Rule 16 and said authority either on a complaint or suo motu can make an enquiry to satisfy itself as to the correctness of the complaint or information so received and pass an order as it deems fit after extending opportunity to the party who would be adversely affected by such order. Rule 16 would indicate the constitution and functions of District Level Education Regulating Authority would be consisting Deputy Commissioner of the District as Chairman, Deputy Director of Public Instructions of the concerned district as Member Secretary and three other members who are Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat and Deputy Director of Pre-University Education, Department of concerned district. When a petition is filed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 15, complainant should disclose the concrete evidence to support his/her grievance as otherwise, for lack of such evidence, the authority constituted under Rule 16 would be empowered to reject the same by issuing appropriate endorsement to the parent. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 enables the Regulating Authority to devise its own procedure for conducting an enquiry including visitation to the institution concerned, making a local enquiry, ascertainment of factual position, examining the evidence stated in the petition and other recourse to verify the truth or otherwise of such complaint or allegation made in the petition. An order passed by the Regulating Authority in exercise of its power vested under Rule 16 is appealable under Rule 17 and either educational institution or the parent if aggrieved by an order passed by Regulating Authority would be entitled file an appeal before Commissioner for Public Instruction who is constituted as an Appellate Authority to hear such appeals.
After having noticed statutory/regulation provisions governing the issue in question and after succinctly analysing the same and also on considering contentions raised, this Court is of the considered view that writ petitions on facts are to be dealt individually.
Before going into facts of each case, it would be necessary to notice that various provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 was the subject-matter of challenge before this Court in W.P. Nos. 23407 to 23409 of 1995 and other connected matters in the case of Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another 1996 (7) Kar. L.J. 664 (DB) : ILR 1996 Kar. 3669 (DB) Division Bench of this Court did not accept the plea put forward by the petitioners therein and held that provisions which were canvassed to be against the fundamental rights particularly, Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g), 21, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution of India was held to be intra vires of the Constitution of India, which is reported in 1996(7) Kar. L.J. 664. This judgment was questioned by petitioners therein before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 334 and 335 of 2004 and Apex Court by order dated 11-2-201.0 has set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court after noticing T.M.A. Pai Foundation''s case reported in (2003)6 SCC 790 and remanded the matter back to this Court for being adjudicated afresh in accordance with law. Said writ petitions are pending before this Court and there is no order of stay in favour of petitioners which is also not disputed by learned Advocates appearing for the institutions. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that subject Rules namely, 1995 Rules and 1999 Rules enacted by the State in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 145 is the scope within which these petitions are being examined and pendency of petitions challenging constitutional validity of Education Act, 1983 pending before this Court does not act as a bar to hear these writ petitions or prevent this Court from examining the contentions raised by petitioners in these petitions. In that view of the matter, writ petitions are examined on facts obtained in each of these cases.
Re: W.P. Nos. 30981 to 31133 and 31522 of 2016:
As already noticed herein above, sum and substance of grievance of the petitioners is fourth respondent-school has been charging exorbitant fees as indicated in Annexure-A and complaints lodged before Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions went in vain and no fruitful action has been taken in this regard. As such, they contend that suitable directions be issued to respondents-authorities.
Same has been controverted by respondents-authorities in their statement of objections as well as in the additional statement of objections filed contending that there is no such demand made by fourth respondent and fee that is being charged is as per the prescribed fee. Memo dated 9-6-2016 filed by learned Government Advocate would indicate that during the pendency of these writ petitions, Deputy Director along with Block Education Officer have visited fourth respondent-school on 3-6-2016 and has examined the audit report, strength of students, fee being collected and as indicated that fourth respondent school is collecting a sum of Rs. 7,620/- in excess of the prescribed amount and same being contrary to Rules 4 and 5 of 1999 Rules.
Re: W.P. Nos. 31135 to 31148 and 31149 of 2016:
Grounds urged in support of the prayer sought for in these writ petitions are similar and identical to the grounds urged in W.P. Nos. 30981 to 31133 and 31522 of 2016. As such, stating of those contentions would be repetition of facts and as such, they are not repeated.
Glaring fact which cannot go unnoticed in these cases is the fact that petitioners have arrayed two schools as respondents 8 and 9. Insofar as respondent 8 is concerned i.e., Gururaghavendra Education Trust, said respondent has approached this Court: by filing a Writ Petition No. 21825 of 20.14 challenging constitutional validity of Rule 10 and Rule 4 of 1995 and 1999 Rules respectively. Said writ petition having been admitted, has been referred to Division Bench adjudicating W.P. Nos. 18809 to 18840 of 2012 by order dated 13-6-2014 - Annexure-R1. In fact, in the said writ petition, 15th petitioner herein has filed an application to get itself impleaded as 7th respondent raising pleas which are similar and identical to the grounds urged in the present writ petitions. In view of the fact that respondent 8 has filed said Writ Petition No. 21825 of 2014 and it is pending before Division Bench, question of considering the claim of petitioners 4 to 14 who are said to be the students studying in 8th respondent-school would not arise particularly, when Division Bench is adjudicating the claim of 8th respondent and also claim of petitioners 4 to 14 being espoused by 15th petitioner. Hence, no opinion is expressed in that regard.
Insofar as petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned, it is submitted by Sri Siddamallappa, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that petitioners 1 to 3 are studying in the school known and called as "Apollo Public School" and submits that by inadvertence and typographical error, name of 9th respondent has been indicated as "Krishna International Public School" and it shall be read as "Apollo Public School". Even if petitioners are permitted to amend the cause title of writ petitions by correcting the name of 9th respondent, it does not make any marked difference inasmuch as, this Court had already noticed and held herein above that insofar as institutions run by respondent 8 which is "Apollo Public School" is the subject-matter of dispute in W.P. No. 21825 of 2014 and as such, it is reiterated that no opinion is expressed in that regard.
Since petitioner 15 is also petitioner 1 in W.P. Nos. 30981 to 31133 and 31522 of 2016, petitioner 101 in W.P. Nos. 30739 to 30839 of 2016, petitioner 74 in W.P. Nos. 30840 to 30913 of 2016 espousing the cause of aggrieved parents tits and being well-conversant with Court craft, he ought not to have ventured to file this petition as 15th petitioner by suppressing the fact of he having already filed an impleading application in W.P. No. 21825 of 2014 and 15th petitioner ought to have disclosed the same in W.P. Nos. 31135 to 31148 and 31149 of 2016 since grounds urged by impleading applicant therein who is none other than petitioner 15 in these petitions, the least expected of such person who claims to be espousing the cause of aggrieved person was to state the factual aspects. Though this Court would not consider the prayer of respondents 8 and 9 to mulct 15th petitioner with exemplary costs for the simple reason that he is also petitioner in other writ petitions as noticed herein above. With a word of caution to 15th petitioner to be cautious in future and shall not indulge in suppressing factual aspects, 15th petitioner is not imposed with any costs for suppression of facts.
Re: W.P. Nos. 30739 to 30839 of 2016:
Petitioners have contended that respondent 9-school is collecting excess fee than what is prescribed under 1995 and 1999 Rules.
In the affidavit filed by the State, it is stated that Committee of three members had inspected three schools on 27-4-2016 including 9th respondent-school. Said Committee is said to have verified admission Register and found that Krishna International School had refused to admit 60 students and at the instance of said committee and its members, students have been admitted to the school. In other words, correctness or otherwise of the excess fee being charged has not been delved upon in the affidavit filed by Deputy Director of Public Instructions. Tire order that would be passed and/or directions in these writ petitions issued would also govern these writ petitions.
Re: W.P. Nos. 30840 to 30913 of 2016:
Even in these writ petitions, grievance of the petitioners is that as per Annexure-A, fee being collected from students has been indicated as per Annexure-A by respondent 9-school and same is contrary to the fee prescribed under 1995 and 1999 Rules. Even on representations submitted to Deputy Commissioner who is Chairman of the Fee Regulating Authority no action has been taken in this regard.
During pendency of present writ petitions, Deputy Director along Block Education Officer has visited 9th respondent-school and has found that a sum of Rs. 1,463/- is being collected in excess of what is prescribed under 1995 and 1999 Rules. As such, it is stated show-cause notice has been issued on 6-6-2016 to 9th respondent as to why recognition granted to 9th respondent-school should not be withdrawn. Thus, it would emerge from above report that respondents-schools, according to State authorities, are charging excess fee.
In other words, there seems to be some truth in the grievance of the petitioners, it is also the rebuttal contention of respondents-schools that no such exam fee is being charged and they claim to have submitted their reply to show-cause notices to the authorities. This Court being fully conscious of the fact that by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not be in a position to examine the factual aspect with facts on hand, indicating that it requires scrutiny of documents, registers, bill books, receipts and the like, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-authorities to examine the same and as such, if direction is issued to authorities for undertaking such exercise, it would suffice. However, this Court cannot also lose sight of the fact before filing of these writ petitions, petitioners were redressing their grievance before respondent-authorities and their complaints to the authorities seems to have fallen on deaf ears and no action has been taken by respondent-authorities. It is only during pendency of present writ petitions, inspection was conducted by Deputy Director/Block Education Officer on 3-6-2016. Though respondents-schools have contended that fee prescribed under the extant Rules cannot be implemented for various reasons, this Court cannot go into that aspect inasmuch as, challenge to constitutional validity of Rule 10 and Rule 4 is before Division Bench of this Court.
At the cost of repetition, it requires to be noticed that when there is no stay of operation of extant Rules or Section 145 of the Act which is also under challenge before this Court, the only question which requires to be examined is whether such Rules are being implemented by the respondents or not or in other words, it is to be examined as to whether there is effective implementation of the extant Rules or not. It is in this background, facts of each cases as noticed herein above have been examined.
Though learned Government Pleader would submit that only in respect of three schools, action has been taken during pendency of present writ petitions and in respect of those schools which had violated the provisions of 1995 and 1999 Rules, action has already been initiated, this Court is of the view that respondents-authorities were not prevented from taking action against those schools in respect of which complaints have been made by petitioners before respective authorities. It is only when petitioners have approached this Court, respondent-authorities have woken up from their slumber and have attempted to conduct inspection. At the time of conducting inspection, parents who had lodged the complaint or who has filed writ petition alleging collection of excess fee was not present and no notices were issued to the complainants not they were heard. Under Rule 16 of 1995 Rules, an Authority constituted to examine violation of any of the provisions of the Act is required to examine the complaints based on information furnished by the complainant also is required to furnish concrete evidence in support of alleged violation by such schools. The Authority which is required to function as District Level Education Regulating Authority headed by Deputy Commissioner as its Chairman, has not been able to place any material before this Court either by way of an affidavit or by way of producing proceedings of such meeting having been conducted by the Regulating Authority. To put it differently, there has been no such meeting conducted by the Authority which would clearly indicate that State has not implemented Rule 16 in its letter and spirit or the purpose for which it was enacted. The issue relating to allegation of the schools or institution charging excess fee and denial by the same by respective institutions is repetitive in nature or in other words, it would be occur in every academic year in future also.
In the light of afore stated facts and also on account of lack of implementation of 1995 and 1999 Rules by respondents-authorities, certain directions are required to be issued to respondents-authorities for such implementation of the Rules. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that following directions if issued, it would meet the ends of justice and it would also redress the grievance of petitioners as well as grievance of schools/management. Keeping in mind that a balance has to be struck between both, mode, manner and method in which fee is to be charged by these institutions have been prescribed under the Rules and said Rules undisputedly being in operation, management of respondents-schools before this Court cannot be heard to contend that they would fall outside the scope of these Rules except respondent 8 in W.P. Nos. 31135 to 31148 and 31149 of 2016 who is before this Court in W.P. No. 21825 of 2014 as already noticed herein above.
Directions that are being issued for the effective implementation of 1995 and 1999 Rules are as under:
(1) Jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions shall ensure that respondent/recognised private educational institution situated within his/her jurisdiction would furnish information relating to the fee specified and being charged by indicating the details of items of fees and the amount of fees prescribed for each item which is being collected by the respective schools/institutions on or before 15th January of the calendar year and a Brochure shall also be maintained in that regard. Respective respondent-schools shall also prominently display on their Notice Board the details of items of fees and amount of fee prescribed for each item. Compliance thereof shall be reported to the Block Education Officer.
(2) Respondent/s Educational Institutions shall prominently display in the school premises that no donation of whatsoever nature either voluntary or otherwise or any money of whatsoever nature would be collected or received by their institutions other than the fee prescribed under Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995 and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Certain Fees and Donations) Rules, 1999 as notified by the Management.
(3) Respondent/s-School Managements shall furnish details of their salary expenditure, list of teaching and non-teaching staff to the jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions including number of students on the roll of the end of the previous academic year and the sanctioned strength within 15th February of every calendar year.
(4) Respondent-Schools or Institution/s shall also furnish on or before 30th March of every'' academic year the proposed expansion, proposal for construction of new buildings if any, or renovation of existing buildings or any other proposed developmental activity that would be undertaken by them in the ensuing academic year by furnishing all particulars with supporting documents to the jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions.
(5) Director of Public Instructions, Secondary Education, Government of Karnataka who is arrayed as respondent 4 in W.P. Nos. 30739 to 30839 of 2016 is hereby directed to ensure due implementation of the above directions through jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions and Block Education Officers, if necessary, by issuing Circulars forthwith. It is needless to state it would be applicable to all unaided Schools/Institutions/Managements or Societies running such schools in the State of Karnataka.
(6) Fee Regulating Authority constituted under Rule 16 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995 on receipt of a complaint/petition from a Parent or Guardian of the student alleging collection of excess fee, donation, etc., shall within one week from the date of receipt of such complaint or petition shall hold a meeting to adjudicate the same and/or deal with such complaint/petition in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995 and thereafter proceed to pass orders after hearing the concerned management of educational institutions by keeping in mind Rule 16 of 1995 Rules. Complaint/petition filed by the petitioners-students through their parent/Guardian, which is subject-matter of these writ petitions shall be accordingly adjudicated.
(7) Jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions and Block Education Officers on being notified of such complaint, shall also ensure that pendency of a dispute relating to fee would not come in the way of petitioners-students from prosecuting or continuing with their education in the respective respondent-educational institutions which would be subject to the students/parents/guardian depositing with the concerned school fee prescribed under Rule 10 of 1995 Rules and as notified.
(8) Respondent-schools/management/institutions shall constitute Parent Teacher Committee as prescribed under Rule 12 of 1995 Rules forthwith, if not already constituted.
(9) This Court, by interim order, had directed petitioners-students to pay 40% of the fees that was demanded by respective schools. It is made clear that petitioners-students shall deposit the fee as prescribed under Rule 10 of 1995 Rules read with Rule 4 of 1999 Rules and same shall be notified by the respective institutions forthwith and on such intimation being published on Notice Board of respective respondents-schools, petitioners-students or their parents/guardians shall deposit the balance amount within 10 days from the date of notification or demand raised. It is also made clear that petitioners would be at liberty to pay such fee either in monthly, quarterly or half yearly or yearly as they may chose to do so, as indicated under Rule 10(7) of 1995 Rules. Any excess fee if collected already by respondents-institutions, same shall be either refunded or adjusted towards next academic year fees and same shall be notified on the notice Board. Payments/refund would be subject to adjudication of dispute by Fee Regulating Authority.
For the reasons afore stated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(1) Writ Petition Nos. 30981 to 31133 and 31522,30739 to 30839 and 30840 to 30913 of 2016 are hereby allowed in part.
(2)Jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions shall ensure that respondent-recognised private educational institution situated within his/her jurisdiction would furnish information relating to the fee specified and being charged by indicating the details of items of fees and the amount of fees prescribed for each item which is being collected by the respective schools/institutions on or before 15th January of the calendar year and a Brochure shall also be maintained in that regard. Respective respondent-schools shall also prominently display on their Notice Board the details of items of fees and amount of fee prescribed for each item. Compliance thereof shall be reported to the Block Education Officer.
(3) Respondent/s-Educational Institutions shall prominently display in the school premises that no donation of whatsoever nature either voluntary or otherwise or any money of whatsoever nature would be collected or received by their institutions other than the fee prescribed under Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995 and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Certain Fees and Donations) Rules, 1999 as notified by the Management.
(4) Respondent/s School Managements shall furnish details of their salary expenditure, list of teaching and non-teaching staff to the jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions including number of students on the roll of the end of the previous academic year and the sanctioned strength within 15th February of every calendar year.
(5) Respondent-Schools or Institution/s shall also furnish on or before 30th March of every academic year the proposed expansion, proposal for construction of new buildings if any, or renovation of existing buildings or any other proposed developmental activity that would be undertaken by them in the ensuing academic year by furnishing all particulars with supporting documents to the jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions.
(6) Director of Public Instructions, Secondary Education, Government of Karnataka who is arrayed as respondent 4 in W.P. Nos. 30739 to 30839 of 2016 is hereby directed to ensure due implementation of the above directions through jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions and Block Education Officers, if necessary, by issuing Circulars forthwith. It is needless to state it would be applicable to all unaided Schools/Institutions/Managements or Societies running such schools in the State of Karnataka.
(7) Fee Regulating Authority constituted under Rule 16 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995 on receipt of a complaint/petition from a Parent or Guardian of the student alleging collection of excess fee, donation, etc., shall within one week from the date of receipt of such complaint or petition shall hold a meeting to adjudicate the same and/or deal with such complaint/petition in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995 and thereafter proceed to pass orders after hearing the concerned management of educational institutions by keeping in mind Rule 16 of 1995 Rules. Complaint/petition filed by the petitioners-students through their parent/Guardian, which is subject-matter of these writ petitions shall be accordingly adjudicated.
(8) Jurisdictional Deputy Director of Public Instructions and Block Education Officers on being notified of such complaint, shall also ensure that pendency of a dispute relating to fee would not come in the way of petitioners-students from prosecuting or continuing with their education in the respective respondent-educational institutions which would be subject to the students/parents/guardian depositing with the concerned school fee prescribed under Rule 10 of 1995 Rules and as notified.
(9) Respondent-schools/management/institutions shall constitute Parent Teacher Committee as prescribed under Rule 12 of 1995 Rules forthwith, if not already constituted.
(10) This Court, by interim order, had directed petitioners-students to pay 40% of the fees that was demanded by respective schools. It is made clear that petitioners-students shall deposit the fee as prescribed under Rule 10 of 1995 Rules read with Rule 4 of 1999 Rules and same shall be notified by the respective institutions forthwith and on such intimation being published on Notice Board of respective respondents-schools, petitioners-students or their parents/guardians shall deposit the balance amount within 10 days from the date of notification or demand raised. It is also made clear that petitioners would be at liberty to pay such fee either in monthly, quarterly or half yearly or yearly as they may chose to do so, as indicated under Rule 10(7) of 1995 Rules. Any excess fee if collected already by respondents-institutions, same shall be either refunded or adjusted towards next academic year fees and same shall be notified on the Notice Board. Payments/refund would be subject to adjudication of dispute by Fee Regulating Authority.
(11) Writ Petition Nos. 31135 to 31148 and 31149 of 2016 are hereby dismissed.
Registry shall make available the operative portion of this order to the learned Advocates appearing for respondents to enable them to comply with the directions issued herein above.