AGARWAL VIDYALAYA MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-205
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on October 08,2014

Agarwal Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 24 September 2013 on the file of Private Schools Fee Determination Committee fixing the fees for the academic years 2014 -2015 and 2015 -2016 by revising the earlier order dated 1 April, 2013. The facts:
(2.) THE petitioner is a minority institution originally affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education and presently following the Matriculation System governed by the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools.
(3.) THE statutory committee appointed by the Government pursuant to the provisions of Act 22 of 2009 determined the fee for the academic years 2010 -2011 to 2012 -2013 by order dated 7 May 2010. The petitioner submitted objection, resulting in revising the order dated 7 May 2013. The petitioner thereafter submitted fresh materials for determination of fees for the academic years 2012 -2013, 2013 -2014 and 2014 -2015. The Committee passed an order dated 1 April 2013 determining the fee for three academic years. The petitioner immediately thereafter submitted its objection on 17 July 2013. The objection was considered by the Committee and thereafter the impugned order was passed determining the fees for the academic years 2014 -2015 and 2015 -2016. The said order is challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that none of the grounds taken in the objection dated 17 July 2013 were considered by the Committee while determining the fees. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to the second respondent, the fee determination committee has evolved a method to assess the expenditure. Accordingly, fee in respect of the petitioner School was fixed form two academic years. The second respondent further contended that the petitioner has claimed exorbitant expenditure and the same was rightly disallowed by the Committee and a fair fee was fixed taking into account all vital aspects.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.