Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and K.K. Tated, J., dismissed a PIL filed seeking direction to schools not to charge more than 50% fees and related reliefs.
By the present public interest litigation, it has been stated that the parents of school children are in financial distress and following reliefs have been claimed:- the direction be issued to the schools, not to charge more than 50% of the fees in this academic year taking into consideration the pandemic and its effects;
- direction to waive off the school fees during pandemic lockdown to be given starting from 23rd March 2020;
- directions to waive off the online sessions for pre-primary and primary section schools from Nursery to 4th std;
- the schools to less make projects where sometimes unnecessary expenses are done for this academic year;
the state government be directed to take due care and see that the schools not to violate if found guilty strict actions to be taken and no schools to reopen till the innovation of vaccine for COVID-19 virus.”
It is to be noted that not a single school has been impleaded as a respondent by the PIL petitioner. Thus granting the prayers of PIL petition in absence of the schools would amount to breach of principles of natural justice.
Court in view of the above stated that Court may add schools as respondents but no explanation has been furnished why the PIL petitioner did not implead at least some of them as respondents.
Another reason for non-interference is that, if at all the statement wherein it has been stated that parents of children are in financial distress, is correct — nothing prevents such parents to approach the government in a group and seek framing of guidelines for reducing the quantum of tuition fees as well as other relief during lockdown period.
In matters relating to academic policy, Courts ought to stay at a distance.
Thus, in view of the above, petition was dismissed of. [Dr Binu Varghese v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 721 , decided on 19-06-2020]
