1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:29/9/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR WP(MD)No.11312 of 2011 The Correspondent, Raghavendra Matriculation School, Trichy District. :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai. 2.Private School Fee Determination Committee, rep. By its Special Officer, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Trichy. :Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 27/5/2011 passed by the second respondent and quash the same. For petitioner:Mr.E.Udhaya For respondent:Mr.S.Chandrasekar,GA ORDER The Correspondent of Raghavendra Matriculation School, Trichy District, has challenged the order dated 27/5/2011 of the Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, on the ground that the Committee has not considered the expenditure periodically incurred by the School and if, the petitioner School is constrained to collect the fee as determined, the School is likely to face an annual deficit of Rs.14 lakhs per year. According to the petitioner, before the Committee, his representation was heard, just for few minutes and that the materials placed by the petitioner School, has not been considered in proper prospective, but in a mechanical manner, the Committee has fixed the fee. 2.A perusal of the impugned proceeding, which is found at page 26 of the typed set of papers, shows that, the objections of the School, have been considered. The Committee has also taken into account the materials placed by the petitioner, in response to the questionnaire. Personal hearing has also been provided with reference to the factors stated in Section 6 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 and Rule 3 of the Rules made thereunder. 3.In this context, useful reference can also be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in THE TAMIL NADU NURSERY MATRICULATION AND HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS reported in 2010 (2) L.W – 726, wherein, the Division Bench while testing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 and Rules made thereunder, upheld, the statutory provisions, except Section 11 of the Act and that the procedure and format, prescribed and adopted by the Committee has been held as valid. 4.A perusal of the impugned order, also shows that the second respondent Committee has considered, various factors such as admission fee, library fee, maintenance and amenities fee and other recurring expenditure and developmental charges etc. There is no manifest illegality in the determination of the fee by the second respondent Committee. Merely because, the petitioner has borrowed a huge amount and the fee structure determined by the Committee, if allowed to be in force, they cannot discharge the loan amount cannot be a reason to quash the fee determination. 5.The contention of the petitioner that without recording a finding a preferring based on materials, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to determine fee structure is untenable in view of the Division Bench judgment stated supra. There is no merits in the writ petition warranting any interference. 6.In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai. 2.The Special Officer, Private School Fee Determination Committee, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Trichy. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.34364. Mvs. RP/04.11.11/2P/5C. W.P.(MD) No.11312 of 2011 29/9/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/