In a recent ruling by Delhi High Court, a judgment was delivered on a case concerning a fee hike dispute and exclusion from an exchange program. The case, originally filed in 2018, involved a challenge against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Schools regarding a fee hike. The judgment sheds light on the legal aspects surrounding non-payment of school fees and participation in exchange programs. Stay tuned for more insights on this significant legal decision.
Facts
- On 18 March, 2024, Master Yuvraj received a WhatsApp message from Respondent No 3 School regarding an exchange program to Germany.
- Master Yuvraj was tentatively selected to be a part of the students’ delegation for the exchange program.
- The writ petition was filed in 2018 by the Appellant against the Respondents, challenging the fee hike by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Schools.
- The fee hike was alleged to be in contravention of circulars and orders issued by Directorate of Education, GNCTD and the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.
- Appellant failed to comply with the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay costs of ₹ 5,000/- to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
- Appellant filed CM APPL. 26445/2024 seeking waiver of costs and CM APPL. 26444/2024 seeking restraint of actions by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
- Learned Single Judge dismissed both applications as an abuse of court process and imposed further costs of ₹ 25,000/- to be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Arguments
- The petitioner has not paid school fees for his daughter for the last six years.
- Despite non-payment, the school has issued necessary documents and completed formalities for the petitioner’s daughter.
- The petitioner challenged a fee hike in 2018 but failed to pay even the undisputed portion of the school fee.
- The allegation of coercion and discrimination against the children by the petitioner is deemed without merit.
- The petitioner’s son was excluded from two exchange programs by the school.
- The petitioner has a cumulative outstanding amount of ₹10.60 lakhs for both children’s school fees.
- The school would have had the right to cancel admission due to non-payment of fees.
Analysis
- The relief sought in the applications was beyond the scope of the writ petition as they were predicated on exclusion from the exchange programme in Germany and Greece.
- The withholding of fees by the Appellant was deemed illegal.
- Non-payment of school fees for six years was a valid legal ground for the school(s) to cancel admission.
- The Appellant did not have a vested right to participate in the exchange programme for Germany.
- The dismissal of the mandamus application for the exchange programme in Germany by the Single Judge was deemed correct.
- The Appellant lacked a legal right to seek directions for participating in the exchange programme for Germany.
- Action taken by the Respondent No 4’s school in issuing all necessary documentation to Miss. Devika Malhotra upon her graduation from class XII indicated absence of coercive or discriminatory actions.
- The Appellant’s explanation for not making payment is deemed unpersuasive.
- The unilateral withholding of school fees for six years due to the pending writ petition indicates misuse of the situation by the Appellant.
- No coercive or discriminatory actions have been taken by the schools against the wards of the Appellant.
Decision
- Requesting the learned Single Judge to hear and dispose of the underlying writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) 2783/2018 along with other petitions expeditiously.
- Requesting the disposal of the petitions preferably within three months from the next date of listing i.e., 1 July, 2024.
- The appeal is found to have no merits and is accordingly dismissed along with pending applications.
Case Title: VIJAY MALHOTRA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS (2024:DHC:4067-DB)
Case Number: LPA-393/2024
