IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE 0NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20066 of 2007 Between: Blue Star Convent Aided High School, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, Rep by its Correspondent V. Kameswari ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by the Principal Secretary to Government, School Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents are not considering the representation dated 7-9-2007 of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 7-9-2007 and permit the petitioner to collect voluntary contributions from the parents of the pupils those who are interested to pay the voluntary contribution to meet the expenditure i.e. salaries of 5 unaided teachers, payment of rents of school buildings, wages to contingent staff, maintenance to the society and other development activities and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.20066 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been moved by High School- complaining of the inaction of the respondents in considering the representation submitted by it on 7.9.2007, seeking permission to collect voluntary contributions from the parents of the pupils prosecuting their education in the school. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is asserted that the school to a certain extent is receiving Grant-in-aid from the State. Three teaching posts have been admitted to Grant-in-Aid, while five other teaching posts have not been so far admitted to Grant-in-aid, apart from few other contingent posts. Since the school is incurring huge expenditure and consequently is not in a position to provide for adequate infrastructural facilities for the students, it submitted the aforementioned representation seeking permission to receive the contributions made voluntarily to enable it to tide over the difficulties in meeting the recurring expenditure for maintaining the school. It will be appropriate at this stage to notice that the State Legislature has enacted the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) 1983 Act referred to as Act 5 of 1983 (for short ‘the Act’) prohibiting the collection of capitation fee. The expression ‘capitation fee’ has been defined in Section 2 (b) as any amount collected in excess of the fee prescribed under Section 7 of the said Act. Collection of any capitation fee by any educational institution or by any person who is in-charge of or is responsible for the management of the institution, has been prohibited by Section 6 of the Act 5 of 1983. However, Section 6 permits the educational institutions to receive certain voluntary donations. Section 6 of the Act reads as under:- “Manner of giving donations:- (1) Any donation of money to any educational institution, shall be made only in such manner as may be prescribed and not otherwise. (2) All moneys received by any educational institution by way of voluntary donations shall be deposited in the account of the institution, in any Scheduled Bank and shall be applied and expended for the improvement of the institution and the development of the educational facilities and for such other related purposes as may be prescribed”. Thus, it will be clear that any donation of money to any educational institution, which it received is liable to be deposited in an account of the institution maintained with any Scheduled Bank and when the same is applied and expended for the improvement of the institution and development of educational facilities there at, it does not fall foul of Section 5 whereby capitation fee has been prohibited. Therefore, no educational institution is prohibited from receiving donations voluntarily made to it. By insisting that the same be deposited into a separate account maintained with a Scheduled Bank, the statute obviously wanted to ensure transparency about the donation received and accountability by prescribing the manner in which the said donation is to be expended. In these set of circumstances, it would be appropriate to observe that so long as records are maintained by any educational institution accounting for the donations received and the manner in which the same is expended, so long as such expenditure is for effecting improvements of the institution and development of the educational facilities there at, receiving of such donations itself is not to be faulted. Hence, the representation submitted by the writ petitioner deserves consideration and the respondents will pass appropriate orders and ensure that the educational institutions will faithfully apply the scheme enunciated under Section 6 of Act 5 of 1983 by adopting such fair and transparent procedures. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and appropriate orders in this regard may be passed on or before 31st May 2008. With this, the writ petition shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date:31.3.2008 mrb