INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 1, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
87
on the face of it, the direction given is inconsistent with the provisions of
the stated Act. To put it tersely, the impugned order issued is in respect
of matters beyond the power of the State Government - to regulate the
fee structure for ensuring that the school Management does not indulge
in profiteering and commercialisation. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 28.10.2020 cannot be sustained even in reference to executive
power under Article 162 of the Constitution.
101. Reverting to the provisions of the Act of 2005, no doubt
Section 72 thereof predicates that the provisions of the Act will have
overriding effect on other laws for the time being in force or anything
inconsistent in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other
than the Act of 2005. This provision, however, would come into effect
only if it is to be held that the Statutory Authorities under the Act of 2005
have power to deal with the subject of school fee structure of private
unaided schools.
102. For that, we may usefully refer to Section 23 of the Act of
2005 which provides for the contents of the plan for disaster management
to be prepared for every State called the State Disaster Management
Plan. Section 23 reads thus:
“23. State Plan.— (1) There shall be a plan for disaster
management for every State to be called the State Disaster
Management Plan.
(2) The State Plan shall be prepared by the State Executive
Committee having regard to the guidelines laid down by the
National
Authority and after such consultation with local authorities, district
authorities and the people’s representatives as the State Executive
Committee may deem fit.
(3) The State Plan prepared by the State Executive Committee
under sub-section (2) shall be approved by the State Authority.
(4) The State Plan shall include,—
(a) the vulnerability of different parts of the State to different
forms of disasters;
(b) the measures to be adopted for prevention and mitigation
of disasters;
(c) the manner in which the mitigation measures shall be
integrated with the development plans and projects;
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
(d) the capacity-building and preparedness measures to be
taken;
(e) the roles and responsibilities of each Department of the
Government of the State in relation to the measures specified
in clauses (b), (c) and (d) above;
(f) the roles and responsibilities of different Departments
of the Government of the State in responding to any
threatening disaster situation or disaster;
(5) The State Plan shall be reviewed and updated annually.
(6) Appropriate provisions shall be made by the State Government
for financing for the measures to be carried out under the State
Plan.
(7) Copies of the State Plan referred to in sub-sections (2) and (5) shall
be made available to the Departments of the Government of the
State and such Departments shall draw up their own plans in
accordance with the State Plan.”
103. Going by the scheme of the Act of 2005, the State Authority
established under Section 14 known as State Disaster Management
Authority is expected to formulate policies and plans for disaster
management in the State. Indeed, such policies and plans may include
mitigation37 measures in respect of persons affected by disaster. The
mitigation measures, however, are aimed merely for reducing the risk/
impact or effects of a disaster or threatening disaster situation. Considering
the sphere of functions of the State Authority including the State Executive
Committee or different Authorities established at concerned level within
the
State, there is not even a tittle of indication that in the name of mitigating
measures, the disaster management plan may comprehend issue of direction
in respect of economic aspects of legitimate subsisting contracts or
transactions between two private individuals with which the State has no
direct causal relationship, and especially when the determination of
compensation/cost/fees is the prerogative of the supplier or manufacturer
of the goods or service provider of the services. The scheme of the Act of
2005 obligates the State Authority to assuage the concerns of the persons
arising from “direct impact” of the disaster and to take mitigation measures
37 Section 2(i) “mitigation” means measures aimed at reducing the risk, impact or effects
of a disaster or threatening disaster situation;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
89
to minimise the impact of such disaster and for that purpose, resort of
capacity-building38 including of its own resources39 to wit, manpower,
services, materials and provisions as noted in Section 2(p), and
preparedness40 measures referred to in Section 2(m). It is not possible to
countenance the persuasive argument of the respondents that expansive
meaning be assigned to the provisions of the Act of 2005 so as to include
power to reduce school fees of private unaided school albeit fixed under
the Act of 2016 and which by law is to remain in force until academic year
2020-21.
104. As is noticed from the preamble of the Act of 2005, it is to
provide for the effective management of disasters and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. It extends to the whole of
India. The Act is to establish Statutory Committees at different level for
carrying out the purposes for which the Act has been enacted. It is
essentially for effective management of disasters and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression “disaster” has
been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act of 2005, which reads thus:
“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
xxx
xxx
xxx
(d) “disaster” means a catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave
occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man made causes,
or by accident or negligence which results in substantial loss of
life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of, property,
or damage to, or degradation of, environment, and is of such a
nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the
community of the affected area;”
105. The Authorities created under the Act of 2005 are expected
to deal with matters concerning the disaster management. The expression
“disaster management” has been defined as follows:
38 Section 2(b) “capacity-building” includes—
(i) identification of existing resources and resources to be acquired or created;
(ii) acquiring or creating resources identified under sub-clause (i);
(iii) organisation and training of personnel and coordination of such training for
effective management of disasters;
39 Section 2(p) “resources” includes manpower, services, materials and provisions;
40 Section 2(m) “preparedness” means the state of readiness to deal with a threatening
disaster situation or disaster and the effects thereof;
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
xxx
xxx
xxx
(e) “disaster management” means a continuous and integrated
process of planning, organising, coordinating and implementing
measures which are necessary or expedient for—
(i) prevention of danger or threat of any disaster;
(ii) mitigation or reduction of risk of any disaster or its severity or
consequences;
(iii) capacity-building;
(iv) preparedness to deal with any disaster;
(v) prompt response to any threatening disaster situation or
disaster;
(vi) assessing the severity or magnitude of effects of any disaster;
(vii) evacuation, rescue and relief;
(viii) rehabilitation and reconstruction;”
106. It is also useful to advert to Section 18 of the Act of 2005
which provides for powers and functions of State Authority established
under Section 14 consisting of Chief Minister of the State, who acts as
Chairperson (Ex officio) and other Chairpersons of the respective
Authorities. Section 18 reads thus:
“18. Powers and functions of State Authority.— (1) Subject
to the provisions of this Act, a State Authority shall have the
responsibility for laying down policies and plans for disaster
management in the State.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of provisions contained in
sub-section (1), the State Authority may—
(a) lay down the State disaster management policy;
(b) approve the State Plan in accordance with the guidelines
laid down by the
National Authority;
(c) approve the disaster management plans prepared by
the departments of the Government of the State;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
91
(d) lay down guidelines to be followed by the departments
of the Government of the State for the purposes of
integration of measures for prevention of disasters and
mitigation in their development plans and projects and
provide necessary technical assistance therefor;
(e) coordinate the implementation of the State Plan;
(f) recommend provision of funds for mitigation and
preparedness measures;
(g) review the development plans of the different
departments of the State and ensure that prevention and
mitigation measures are integrated therein;
(h) review the measures being taken for mitigation, capacity
building and preparedness by the departments of the
Government of the State and issue such guidelines as may
be necessary.
(3) The Chairperson of the State Authority shall, in the case of
emergency, have power to exercise all or any of the powers of
the State Authority but the exercise of such powers shall be subject
to ex post facto ratification of the State Authority.”
107. The obligation of the State Government for the purpose of
disaster management can be culled out from Section 38, which reads
thus:
“38. State Government to take measures.— (1) Subject to
the provisions of this Act, each State Government shall take all
measures specified in the guidelines laid down by the National
Authority and such further measures as it deems necessary or
expedient, for the purpose of disaster management.
(2) The measures which the State Government may take under
sub-section (1) include measures with respect to all or any of the
following matters, namely:—
(a) coordination of actions of different departments of the
Government of the State, the State Authority, District
Authorities, local authority and other non-governmental
organisations;
(b) cooperation and assistance in the disaster management
to the National Authority and National Executive Committee,
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
the State Authority and the State Executive Committee, and
the District Authorities;
(c) cooperation with, and assistance to, the Ministries or
Departments of the Government of India in disaster
management, as requested by them or otherwise deemed
appropriate by it;
(d) allocation of funds for measures for prevention of
disaster, mitigation, capacity-building and preparedness by
the departments of the Government of the State in
accordance with the provisions of the State Plan and the
District Plans;
(e) ensure that the integration of measures for prevention
of disaster or mitigation by the departments of the
Government of the State in their development plans and
projects;
(f) integrate in the State development plan, measures to
reduce or mitigate the vulnerability of different parts of the
State to different disasters;
(g) ensure the preparation of disaster management plans
by different departments of the State in accordance with
the guidelines laid down by the National Authority and the
State Authority;
(h) establishment of adequate warning systems up to the
level of vulnerable communities;
(i) ensure that different departments of the Government of
the State and the District Authorities take appropriate
preparedness measures;
(j) ensure that in a threatening disaster situation or disaster,
the resources of different departments of the Government
of the State are made available to the National Executive
Committee or
the State Executive Committee or the District
Authorities, as the case may be, for the purposes of
effective response, rescue and relief in any threatening
disaster situation or disaster;
(k) provide rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance to
the victims of any disaster; and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
93
(l) such other matters as it deems necessary or expedient
for the purpose of securing effective implementation of
provisions of this Act.”
108. The corresponding responsibilities of departments of the State
Government have been delineated in Section 39, which reads thus:
“39. Responsibilities of departments of the State
Government.— It shall be the responsibility of every department
of the Government of a State to—
(a) take measures necessary for prevention of disasters,
mitigation, preparedness and capacity building in accordance
with the guidelines laid down by the National Authority and
the State Authority;
(b) integrate into its development plans and projects, the
measures for prevention of disaster and mitigation;
(c) allocate funds for prevention of disaster, mitigation,
capacity-building and preparedness;
(d) respond effectively and promptly to any threatening
disaster situation or disaster in accordance with the State
Plan, and in accordance with the guidelines or directions of
the National Executive Committee and the State Executive
Committee;
(e) review the enactments administered by it, its policies,
rules and regulations with a view to incorporate therein the
provisions necessary for prevention of disasters, mitigation
or preparedness;
(f) provide assistance, as required, by the National Executive
Committee, the State Executive Committee and District
Authorities, for—
(i) drawing up mitigation, preparedness and response
plans,
capacity-building, data collection and identification
and training of personnel in relation to disaster
management;
(ii) assessing the damage from any disaster;
(iii) carrying out rehabilitation and reconstruction;
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
(g) make provision for resources in consultation with the
State Authority for the implementation of the District Plan
by its authorities at the district level;
(h) make available its resources to the National Executive
Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District
Authorities for the purposes of responding promptly and
effectively to any disaster in the State, including measures
for—
(i) providing emergency communication with a vulnerable
or affected area;
(ii) transporting personnel and relief goods to and from
the affected area;
(iii) providing evacuation, rescue, temporary shelter or
other immediate relief;
(iv) carrying out evacuation of persons or live-stock from
an area of any threatening disaster situation or disaster;
(v) setting up temporary bridges, jetties and landing
places;
(vi) providing drinking water, essential provisions,
healthcare and services in an affected area;
(i) such other actions as may be necessary for disaster
management.”
109. The State Executive Committee constituted under the Act of
2005 vide Section 20 is obligated to discharge the functions delineated in
Section 22 of the Act. The same reads thus:
“22. Functions of the State Executive Committee.— (1) The
State Executive Committee shall have the responsibility for
implementing the National Plan and State Plan and act as the
coordinating and monitoring body for management of disaster in
the State.
(2) Without prejudice to
the generality of the provisions of sub-
section (1), the State Executive Committee may—
(a) coordinate and monitor the implementation of the
National Policy, the National Plan and the State Plan;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
95
(b) examine the vulnerability of different parts of the State
to different forms of disasters and specify measures to be
taken for their prevention or mitigation;
(c) lay down guidelines for preparation of disaster
management plans by the departments of the Government
of the State and the District Authorities;
(d) monitor the implementation of disaster management plans
prepared by the departments of the Government of the State
and District Authorities;
(e) monitor the implementation of the guidelines laid down
by the State Authority for integrating of measures for
prevention of disasters and mitigation by the departments
in their development plans and projects;
(f) evaluate preparedness at all governmental or non-
governmental levels to respond to any threatening disaster
situation or disaster and give directions, where necessary,
for enhancing such preparedness;
(g) coordinate response in the event of any threatening
disaster situation or disaster;
(h) give directions to any Department of the Government
of the State or any other authority or body in the State
regarding actions to be taken in response to any threatening
disaster situation or disaster;
(i) promote general education, awareness and community
training in regard to the forms of disasters to which different
parts of the State are vulnerable and the measures that
may be taken by such community to prevent the disaster,
mitigate and respond to such disaster;
(j) advise, assist and coordinate the
activities of the
Departments of the Government of the State, District
Authorities, statutory bodies and other governmental and
non-governmental organisations engaged in disaster
management;
(k) provide necessary technical assistance or give advice
to District Authorities and local authorities for carrying out
their functions effectively;
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
(l) advise the State Government regarding all financial
matters in relation to disaster management;
(m) examine the construction, in any local area in the State
and, if it is of the opinion that the standards laid for such
construction for the prevention of disaster is not being or
has not been followed, may direct the District Authority or
the local authority, as the case may be, to take such action
as may be necessary to secure compliance of such
standards;
(n) provide information to the National Authority relating to
different aspects of disaster management;
(o) lay down, review and update State level response plans
and guidelines and ensure that the district level plans are
prepared, reviewed and updated;
(p) ensure that communication systems are in order and
the disaster management drills are carried out periodically;
(q) perform such other functions as may be assigned to it
by the State Authority or as it may consider necessary.”
110. Having regard to the purport of the Act of 2005, it is
unfathomable as to how the State Authorities established under the stated
Act can arrogate unto themselves power to issue directions to private
parties on economic aspects of legitimate subsisting contractual matters
or transactions between them inter se. In any case, the impugned order
has not been issued by the State Authority referred to in the Act of 2005.
It is not enough to say that the same was issued under the
directions of
the Chief Minister of the State. For, the Chief Minister is only the
Chairperson (Ex officio) of the State Disaster Management Authority
established under Section 14 of the Act of 2005. Suffice it to observe
that there is no provision in the Act of 2005 which concerns or governs
the subject of interdicting the school fee structure fixed under the Act of
2016.
111. Section 72 of the Act of 2005 was pressed into service.
However, that cannot be the basis to justify the impugned order dated
28.10.2020. Section 72 reads thus:
“72. Act to have overriding effect.— The provisions of this
Act, shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
97
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or
in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than
this Act.”
The Act of 2005 is not a panacea for all difficulties much less not
concerning disaster management [Section 2(e)] as such. As noted earlier,
there is no express provision in the Act of 2005 which empowers the
Director, Secondary Education (or the State Government) to issue order
and directions in respect of school fee structure because of the pandemic
situation.
112. For the same reasons, reliance placed on the provisions of
the State legislation, namely, the Act of 2020 dealing with epidemic
diseases will be of no avail to justify the impugned order dated 28.10.2020
issued by the Director, Secondary Education. The power to take special
measures and specify regulation as to epidemic disease can be exercised
by the State Government under Section 4 of the Act of 2020. Section 4
reads thus:
“4. Power to take special measures and specify regulations
as to epidemic disease.— (1) When at any time the Government
is satisfied that the State or any part thereof is visited by or
threatened with an outbreak of any epidemic disease, the
Government may take such measures, as it deems necessary for
the purpose, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such
temporary regulations or orders to be observed by the public or
by any person or class of persons so as to prevent the outbreak of
such epidemic disease or the spread
thereof and require or
empower District Collectors to exercise such powers and duties
as may be specified in the said regulations or orders.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing provisions, the Government may take measures and
specify regulations,-
(a) to prohibit any usage or act which the Government
considers sufficient to spread or transmit epidemic diseases
from person to person in any gathering, celebration, worship
or other such activities within the State;
(b) to inspect the persons arriving in the State by air, rail,
road or any other means or in quarantine or in isolation, as
the case may be, in hospital, temporary accommodation, home
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
or otherwise of persons suspected of being infected with
any such disease by the officer authorized in the regulation
or orders;
(c) to seal State Borders for such period as may be deemed
necessary;
(d) to impose restrictions on the operation of public and
private transport;
(e) to prescribe social distancing norms or any other
instructions for the public to observe that are considered
necessary for public health and safety on account of the
epidemic;
(f) to restrict or prohibit congregation of persons in public
places and religious institutions or places of worship;
(g) to regulate or restrict the functioning of offices,
Government and private and educational institutions in the
State;
(h) to impose prohibition or restrictions on the functioning
of shops and commercial and other offices, establishments,
factories, workshops and godowns;
(i) to restrict duration of services in essential or emergency
services such as banks, media, health care, food supply,
electricity, water, fuel etc.; and
(j) such other measures as may be necessary for the
regulation and prevention of epidemic diseases as decided
by the Government.”
The measures enunciated in Section 4 of the Act of 2020 in no
way deal with the “tariffs” of air, rail, road, hospital, temporary
accommodation. It only enables the Authority to prohibit any usage or
activities which the Government considers sufficient to spread or transmit
epidemic diseases and for that
purpose to inspect various places suspected
of being infected with such diseases. Indeed, it can regulate or restrict
the functioning of offices, Government and private and educational
institutions in the State. That, however, would be only in respect of manner
of its use and its timings including to observe standard operating
procedures to ensure that epidemic diseases do not transmit or spread
on account of activities carried out therein. That power to regulate cannot
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
99
be invoked to control the tariffs, fees or cost of goods and services and
in particular economic aspects of contractual matters between two private
parties or so to say school fees of private unaided schools. Accordingly,
even the last point urged by the State to justify the impugned order dated
28.10.2020 falls to the ground.
113. A priori, it must follow that the Director, Secondary Education
had no authority whatsoever to issue direction in respect of fee structure
determined under the Act of 2016 including to reduce the same for the
academic year 2020-21 in respect of private unaided schools. Having
failed to trace the legitimate source of power under which the directions
have been issued, as aforesaid, the respondents - State Authorities cannot
fall back upon the benign hope expressed by the High Court to do the
needful in the backdrop of the representations made by several parents
about the difficulties encountered by them due to pandemic situation. It
would have been a different matter if the Director, Secondary Education
had used his good offices to impress upon the school management(s) of
the concerned school(s) to explore the mitigating measures/options on
their own for the academic year 2020-21 and to give concession to their
students to the extent possible at least in respect of unutilised facilities
and savings on overheads by the school Management in that behalf or to
give concession in the form of scholarship to deserving students. It is
stated by the appellants that the school Management on their own had
offered scholarship of 25 per cent of the annual fee to their students. In
other words, the Director, Secondary Education could have mediated
between the Association of the school Management and representatives
of the Parent-Teachers Association for arriving at an amicable solution
due to pandemic situation for the academic year 2020-21, on humanitarian
grounds, but could not issue the impugned order when even the State
had no power to issue the same.
114. Accordingly, the appellants are justified in assailing the order
dated 28.10.2020 issued by the Director, Secondary Education and must
succeed. However, that does not give licence to the appellants to be
rigid and not be sensitive about aftermath of pandemic. The school
Management supposedly engaged in doing charitable activity of imparting
education, is expected to be responsive and alive to that situation and
take necessary remedial measures to mitigate the hardship suffered by
the students and their parents. It is for the school Management to
reschedule payment of school fee in such a way that not even a single
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
student is left out or denied opportunity of pursuing his/her education, so
as to effectuate the adage “live and let live”.
115. In law, the school Management cannot be heard to collect
fees in respect of activities and facilities which are, in fact, not provided
to or availed by its students due to circumstances beyond their control.
Demanding fees even in respect of overheads on such activities would
be nothing short of indulging in profiteering and commercialisation. It is
a well-known fact and judicial notice can also be taken that, due to
complete lockdown the schools were not allowed to open for substantially
long period during the academic year 2020-21. Resultantly, the school
Management must have saved overheads and recurring cost on various
items such as petrol/diesel, electricity, maintenance cost, water charges,
stationery charges, etc. Indeed, overheads and operational cost so saved
would be nothing, but an amount undeservedly earned by the school
without offering such facilities to the students during the relevant period.
Being fee, the principle of quid pro quo must come into play. However,
no accurate (factual) empirical data has been furnished by either side
about the extent to which such saving has been or could have been
made or benefit derived by the school Management. Without insisting
for mathematical exactitude approach, we would assume that the school
Management(s) must have saved around 15 per
cent of the annual school
fees fixed by the school/adjudicated by the Statutory Regulatory
Authorities for the relevant period.
116. At this stage, we must advert to the stand taken by the learned
counsel for the appellants that the appellants would be content with the
interim order passed by this Court on 08.02.2021, being confirmed as a
final order. This suggestion is indeed attractive, but that arrangement
does not provision for the amounts saved by the school Management
towards unspent overheads/expenses in respect of facilities not utilised
or could not be offered by the school Management to the students due to
lockdown situation. As aforesaid, we would assume that at least 15 per
cent of the annual school fees would be towards overheads/expenses
saved by the school Management. Arguendo, this assumption is on the
higher side than the actual savings by the school Management of private
unaided schools, yet we are inclined to fix that percentage because the
educational institutions are engaged in doing charitable activity of imparting
and spreading education and not make money. That they must willingly
and proactively do. Hence, collection of commensurate amount (15 per
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
101
cent of the annual school fees for academic year 2020-2021), would be
a case of profiteering and commercialisation by the school Management.
117. Ordinarily, we would have thought it appropriate to relegate
the parties before the Regulatory Authority to refix the school fees for
the academic year 2020-21 after taking into account all aspects of the
matter including the advantage gained by the school Management due
to unspent overheads/expenses in respect of facilities not availed by the
students. However, that course can be obviated by the arrangement that
we propose to direct in terms of this judgment. To avoid multiplicity of
proceedings (as school fee structure is linked to school — school wise)
including uncertainty of legal processes by over 36,000 schools in
determination of annual fee structure for the academic year 2020-21, as
a one-time measure to do complete justice between the parties, we
propose to issue following directions:
(i)
The appellants (school Management of the concerned
private unaided school) shall collect annual school fees from
their students as fixed under the Act of 2016 for the
academic year 2019-20, but by providing deduction of 15
per cent on that amount in lieu of unutilised facilities by the
students during the relevant period of academic year 2020-
21.
(ii)
The amount so payable by the concerned students be paid
in six equal monthly instalments before 05.08.2021 as noted
in our order dated 08.02.2021.
(iii)
Regardless of
the above, it will be open to the appellants
(concerned schools) to give further concession to their
students or to evolve a different pattern for giving concession
over and above those noted in clauses (i) and (ii) above.
(iv)
The school Management shall not debar any student from
attending either online classes or physical classes on account
of non-payment of fees, arrears/outstanding fees including
the installments, referred to above, and shall not withhold
the results of the examinations of any student on that account.
(v)
If any individual request is made by the parent/ward finding
it difficult to remit annual fees for the academic year 2020-
21 in the above terms, the school Management to consider
such representation on case-to-case basis sympathetically.
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
(vi)
The above arrangement will not affect collection of fees
for the academic year 2021-22, as is payable by the students
of the concerned school as and when it becomes due and
payable.
(vii)
The school Management shall not withhold the name of
any student/candidate for the ensuing Board examinations
for Classes X and XII on the ground of non-payment of
fee/arrears for the academic year 2020-21, if any, on
obtaining undertaking of the concerned parents/students.
118. We are conscious of the fact that we are issuing general
uniform direction of deduction of 15 per cent of the annual school fees in
lieu of unutilised facilities/activities and not on the basis of actual data
school-wise. As aforesaid, we have chosen to do so with a view to
obviate avoidable litigation and to give finality to the issue of determination
and collection of school fees for the academic year 2020-21, as a one-
time measure which is the subject matter of these appeals. We have
consciously limited the quantum of deduction from annual school fees to
15 per cent although the school Management had mentioned about its
willingness to provide 25 per cent scholarship to deserving students, as
we have compelled the school Management to collect annual school
fees for the academic year 2020-21 as was fixed for the academic year
2019-20 on which some of the school Management(s) could have
legitimately asked for increase of at least 10 per cent in terms
of Section
6(5) of the Act of 2016.
119. As we are disposing of the appeals in terms of this judgment,
the contempt petition(s) filed before the High Court on the basis of impugned
judgment also need to be disposed of. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate
to dispose of all the contempt petition(s) initiated in reference to the
impugned judgment, as the same is being overturned by this decision.
120. While parting, we must note that the respondent-State of
Rajasthan has moved a formal application for recall/modification of
direction given in clause (g) of the order of this Court dated 08.02.2021
— to ensure payment of outstanding dues towards unit cost payable to
respective unaided schools within specified time. It is urged that due to
complexity of facts, it was not possible to complete the process of
computation before 31.03.2021. In the first place, there is no question of
recall or modification of that direction. We were conscious of the fact
that that is not the subject matter of the appeals before this Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
103
Nevertheless, such direction was issued taking into account totality of
the situation and to give relief to the private unaided schools by directing
the State of Rajasthan to discharge its statutory obligation within specified
time, of paying the outstanding dues of the concerned private unaided
schools towards unit cost. Accordingly, we reiterate that direction but
give further time to the State Government to complete the process of
calculation and disbursal of the outstanding amount payable towards unit
cost to the concerned unaided schools in the State of Rajasthan before the
end of July 2021. The outstanding dues to be paid in terms of this direction
would be obviously in respect of academic year upto 2020-21.
121. We must also note that we have not dilated on each of the
reported decisions relied upon by the parties, as it is not necessary to do
so for the view taken by us. For, there is nothing inconsistent in those
decisions.
ORDER
In view of the above,
(a)
we dispose of the first set of appeals challenging the validity
of the Act of 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder with
observations and the conclusion recorded in paragraph 52
above by reading down Sections 4, 7 and 10 of the Act and
direct that henceforth the same be applied in conformity
with the law declared in this judgment.
(b)
The second set of appeals, however, are allowed in the
above terms including mentioned in paragraph 117. The
impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated
18.12.2020 is quashed and set aside. Instead, the intra-court
appeals preferred by the appellants questioning the decision
of the learned Single Judge and the writ petitions filed before
the High Court to assail the impugned order dated
28.10.2020, shall stand disposed of in terms of this judgment.
(c)
The contempt petition(s) pending before the High Court in
connection with the subject matter of these appeals also
stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Nidhi Jain
Appeals disposed of.
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]