S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.99 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed. The writ application was filed by one Arun Kumar Majumdar as Secretary of the Guardian Association of the Julien Day School and Julien Day Nursery School questioning the enhancement in the rate of tution fees of the said schools, inter alia, on the ground that the same was arbitrary in nature. The writ petitioner had given a Comparative Chart as regard the enhancement of fees on various heads from year to year which reads thus: Comparative chart of fees and other charges in respect of each student in every Session. JUDGEMENT_542_CALLT2_2000Html1.htm
(2.) In the writ application, the writ petitioner, inter alia, questioned the notices dated 26-2-98 and 2-3-98 which are contained in annexure 'A' to the writ application whereby and whereunder the enhancement in the fees on various heads had been notified. The case of the appellants on the other hand is that keeping in view the fact that the institution is an unaided one and further in view of the condition of grant of recognisation by ICSE authorities to the effect that the salary paid to the teachers must be equivalent to the salary paid to the teachers employed by the State, it had no other alternative but to take the aforementioned steps. It had been, inter alia, contended; "It is specifically stated that before enhancement of fees as mentioned in the Notice dated March 2, 1998 and February 26, 198 the school authorities had held a meeting with the guardians of the wards of the school and in consultation with the guardians of the wards, such enhancement of fees were made. In any event it is beyond any dispute that expenses in every walks of life is increasing rapidly in comparison to the immediate earlier year and in order to meet the raising costs involved in running the school, the school authorities had no other alternative, but to increase the fees as mentioned in the said notice which is not only nominal and small in consideration to the raising costs but also much lower at the rate taken by other similar private institutions. Moreover, in order to seek affiliation for the Science stream of the school, in response to persistent requests of the guardians, the school has to fulfill the condition of separate well-equipped laboratories and in order to meet up costs involved for such fulfilment of the condition and other day to day costs involved in running the school, the school authorities had no other alternative but to increase the fees including the security deposit at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- being interest free refundable at the time when the student leaves the school. It is stated that from the comparative chart of fees and other charges in respect of each student in every session, it would be evident that the tution fees and session fees and other fees were never increased every year as alleged by the petitioner. Session fees and tution fees were increased after every 2 to 3 years in order to meet up the rising costs involved in running the school and to meet the administrative expenses. It is to be borne in mind that the school is entirely an unaided one and it has to meet its expenses to a large extent from the fees collected from the students. It would also be found from the said comparative chart that the fees were not at all increased every year and the enhancement of fees, whenever made, were not at all exorbitant, in comparison to hike in prices in all respects, rather the same was negligible. It is repeated that whenever the rate of fees have been increased, the same have been increased in consultation with the guardians in order to meet the rising cost involved in running the school and to meet the administrative expenses of the school. It would be evident from the chart given by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the petition that in the session 97-98, tution fees were increased only Rs.15/- in relation to the previous year and, for the session 98-99, the same was increased to Rs. 50/- in relation to the year 1997-98. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the school authorities have increased the tution fees Rs.700/- per year. I repeat the tution fees for the session 98-99 has been increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.50/- only. Such enhancement is meagre and small in consideration of the raising costs in all respects and administrative expenses involved in running the school and the same cannot be a nightmare of the guardians of the students. Apart from the same, such enhancement involving the consideration of the hike in costs and administrative expenses in running the school, cannot form the subject-matter of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, for the purpose of adjudication of the same, extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court cannot be invoked or availed of." 2. Our attention had also been drawn to the Balance Sheet for the year 1998-99 which is contained in annexure 'B' to the writ application from a perusal whereof it appears that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was, inter alia, required for the purpose of construction of Laboratory and Building construction by way of Capital Expenditure.
(3.) The learned trial Judge while taking into consideration the fact that unaided institution can not compelled to charge on the same fees as are charged in the Government Institutions, observed; "An unaided institution cannot be compelled to charge the same fee as charged in the Government institution as they have to meet the cost of imparting education from their own resources and the main source can only be the funds collected from the students and that is the concept of 'self financing educational institutions' and 'cost based educational institutions' come in. The cost of education, however, may vary from institution to institution and in this respect many variable factors may have to be taken into account. But one thing is clear that commercialisation of education cannot and should not be permitted which intention has been clearly expressed by the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures in unmistakable terms. Further, both in the light of our tradition and from the stand point of interest of general public commercialisation is positively harmful; it is opposed to public policy. This is one of the reason for the conclusion that imparting education cannot be trade, business or profession.";