HC refuses to stay order allowing pvt schools to charge annual & dev fees
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to issue an interim stay on an earlier single judge bench order which allowed private schools to collect Annual Charges and Development Fees from its students during lockdown but went on to issue notice in response to an appeal filed by the Delhi government and few students challenging the judgement.
A vacation bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Amit Bansal was hearing an appeal challenging a High Court order passed by Justice Jayant Nath which quashed two orders issued by the Delhi government passed in April and August that restrained private schools from collecting Annual Charges and Development Fees from students during the time of lockdown.
During the course of proceedings, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Delhi government, told the bench that the High Court order placing reliance on a Supreme Court judgement "was wrong" as the matter pertained to a period in Rajasthan when the schools were physically reopening operations but it was not the case in the Capital.
Singh further told the court that the existing percentage, that is 60 per cent of the total tuition fee, was sufficient for the teachers' salary. "60 per cent of tuition fee is sufficient to cover teachers' salaries… there is no income. Taxes will come when there is an income," Singh submitted.
However, in response to Singh's submissions, the bench remarked, "Don't be a populist government. Give money to schools also…"
Singh further argued that parents were being harassed due to the current situation and that the "schools are going completely berserk" in levying such fees. "I have received a WhatsApp message just now from a parent. They are saying even transportation fees are charged from students on the basis of this order," the senior advocate told the court.
Thereafter, the counsel submitted that the High Court could have asked the government to return to the respective school committees for further deliberation of the matter. Lastly, he argued that the said single-judge order was "grossly unjust and illegal" and ought to be stayed.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the respondent, contended that the Delhi government had no power to interdict private contracts and that the relied-upon Supreme Court judgement had issued operative decisions "for the benefit of the students".
Divan further argued that the entire analysis in the present case is "completely independent of Supreme Court judgement". "Court wants to give benefit to students. It's saying give installments. It's saying you cannot withhold education, you can't eject them from online classes," the counsel argued, while adding that there was no allegation of profiteering in the matter as ruled by the High Court.
However, the bench said it is not inclined to pass an interim stay order in the matter and will later upload an order elaborating the reasons for the same.
