: 1 : wp-3445-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3445 OF 2011 Ranjit Sampatrao Jadhavrao .. Petitioner v/s. The Educational Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.V. Kanade i/b Sanjay S. Gawde for the petitioner Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 5 Mr. Vineet B. Naik with Mr. Sukand Kulkarni for respondent no.6 CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 9th AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction against respondent nos. 1 to 5 to take action against respondent no.6 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987. Further direction is sought against respondent nos. 1 to 5 not to approve any revision of fees by respondent no.6 school till the State Government brings into effect the proposed legislation of regulation of collection of fee by the Educational Institution. The further relief claimed in the petition is to direct the respondent no.1 to 5 to implement the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. : 2 : wp-3445-11=.doc 2. Reverting to the relief in the context of provisions of Act of 1987, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had approached the appropriate Authority referred to in the said Act to examine the grievance about the fees collected by respondent no.6, either in whole or in part, being in the nature of collection of capitation fee. From the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Act, it is obvious that the State Government is expected to examine any complaint received against the management of any institution in this behalf. For that reason, the petitioner ought to first pursue the matter before the Authority, who is competent to answer the controversy on merits. Only after the said Authority were to record the finding against the institution, the question of labeling the amount collected by the institution in the name of fee, can be said to be capitation fee. The petitioner is, therefore, free to approach the Principal Secretary (School Education and Sports) of the State Government, who in turn shall process the complaint so made by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law and depending upon the outcome of the said complaint, proceed to issue necessary directions, as may be required in the fact situation of the case. 3. So far as second relief is concerned, even that aspect will have to be dealt with by the Authority, who is competent to approve the : 3 : wp-3445-11=.doc revision of fee by the private unaided institutions. The petitioner is free to make representation to the concerned Authority even in that regard, if so advised, who in turn shall decide the said representation on its own merits and in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioner to agitate in the said representation that the revision already made or proposed to be made by the respondent no.6 institution is affecting the rights guaranteed to the students admitted in the respondent no.6 school, guaranteed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. That contention will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 4. All questions in that behalf are left open, to be answered by the concerned Authority. We hope and trust that the appropriate Authority would decide the representation to be made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible after giving fair opportunity to the parties concerned, preferably within SIX weeks from the receipt thereof. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)