Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
New Delhi, Oct 10 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has said the Directorate of Education (DoE) does not have “unbridled” powers to regulate fees charged by unaided schools but can only intervene to prevent profiteering, commercialization of education and charging of capitation fees.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the decision of a single-judge bench setting aside the DoE direction barring fee hike by Bluebells School International and Lilavati Vidya Mandir for the academic session 2017-18.
The single-judge bench, in an order passed in February last year, allowed the writ petitions filed by the schools and set aside the DOE order to the extent of the fee hike.
The appeal was filed by the students along with their parents and the DoE, arguing that the government had the right to regulate the fees charged by unaided schools under the Delhi School Education Act (DSEA), 1973.
In its judgment, the bench led by CJ Upadhyay raised the question “whether, in the facts of the present case, the DoE can be said to have the necessary power and jurisdiction to restrain privately run and unaided schools from increasing their fees in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 17(3) and 18(4) of the DSEA, 1973, read with Rules 172 to 179 falling under Chapter XIV of the DSER goes.” 1973.”
The Delhi government argued that the Supreme Court judgment clearly gave the DoE the power to regulate fees, arguing that “the Director has the power to regulate fees under Section 17(3) of the DSEA, 1973.”
Similarly, counsel for the parents argued that “the government is equipped with the necessary powers to take regulatory measures and ensure that educational institutions continue to play a vital and decisive role in spreading education and not just making money.”
On the other hand, the schools argued that “no interference with the decision of the learned Single Judge would be justified merely on the ground of the fact that this Division Bench is unable to agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge, unless it is found that the approach taken by the learned Single Judge is perverse or clearly illegal”.
He opposed any remand, saying it would be an “exercise in futility”.
After hearing the submissions, CJI Upadhyay said, “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case (Modern School v. Union of India), after reviewing the entire law with regard to the extent of the power of the Government to regulate the fees charged by unaided schools, has clearly concluded that such regulation is permissible, however, only to the extent of profiteering, commercialization and charging of capitation fees by the schools”.
It states that the power to regulate the fees charged by unaided schools cannot be construed as “unbridled power or authority of the State to regulate the fees charged by unaided schools”.
The Delhi High Court said, “Thus, the powers and authority available to the GNCTD under Section 17(3) of the DSEA, 1973 are to the aforesaid extent and also to ensure that the profit/surplus generated by the schools is not utilized for any other use or purpose; nor can it be used for personal gain or other business or enterprise.”
Rejecting the appeals of the parents and the Delhi government, the bench led by CJ Upadhyay reiterated the observations of the single-judge bench that it would be open to the DoE to proceed afresh as per law to find out whether there has been any violation of law by the schools.
–IANS
PDS/DPB