Apeejay School vs Dhriti Duggal

2025 INSC 925 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8544 of 2022)

Apeejay School …Appellant Versus Dhriti Duggal & Anr. …Respondents With Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8542 of 2022) And Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13848-13903 of 2023)

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is an unaided private school which filed

suits for recovery of money, against the students and their

Signature Not Verified parents, which recovery was of the fee hike notified to the Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.08.05

parents and their wards, which the parents failed to remit. 16:22:14 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 13

CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

The suits were decreed by the trial court and in the appeals

filed by the defendants, minor modifications were made to

the decretal amount and the interest levied, which was

reduced from 12% to 6%. The trial court directed the

recovery subject to the outcome of the decision of the Fee

and Fund Regulatory Committee (hereinafter referred to as

“FFRC”) established under the Haryana School Education

Act, 19951 and Haryana School Education Rules, 20032; which

body was entrusted to go into the reasonableness and

justification of the hike in fees.

3. In appeal, the Appellate Court, while affirming the

judgment and decree, directed refund of the entire amounts

if the FFRC finds in favour of the defendant students. The

plaintiff school filed a Review Petition before the Appellate

Court pointing out that, if at all, the FFRC holds in favour of

the defendant students, the refund can be only to the extent,

the FFRC interferes with the fee hike. The Review Petition

was dismissed against which thirty-one Second Appeals

1 “the Act” 2 “the Rules”

Page 2 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

were filed by the school. Twenty-Seven, Second Appeals

were filed by the parents against the Appellate Order

affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. The

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, interfered with the

concurrent findings on the ground that the rules provided an

alternate remedy, which read with Section 22 of the Act,

specifically ousted the jurisdiction of the civil courts in fee

hike matters. The Special Leave Petitions are filed against

the Order of the High Court in which we have granted leave.

4. The facts are identical, and we need only to refer to

that arising from Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 8544 of 2022.

The parties are referred to as per their status in the suit. It is

admitted that none raised a dispute insofar as the defendant

students having studied in the school for the entire period

for which the suit for recovery of money was filed. It is

admitted by the plaintiff that till 2008-09, the students had

paid the fees as notified by the school. It was the hike

notified by the school in the academic year 2009-10, which

led to the dispute raised on the allegation of unreasonable

and excessive fees having been charged. The defendant-

Page 3 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

parents continued to pay the school fees as notified earlier,

minus the hike and the school also permitted the students to

continue their studies.

5. The Government had also issued a notification

restricting the fee hike which was successfully challenged in

a Writ Petition. The Judgment having been delivered in the

year 2011, an appeal was filed by the State, which was

withdrawn in 2014, acceding to the directions in the

impugned judgment. Thereafter, the school filed the above

suits against the defendants; the students and their parents,

the trajectory of which litigation we have already noticed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Sh. H. L. Tiku appearing for

the appellant pointed out that the fee hike was notified to the

students and there was never a complaint raised before the

educational authorities. The notification of the Government

restricting the hike to 20% was successfully challenged by

the school and within the limitation period, after the disposal

of the Writ Petition and the LPA. The rules were amended

introducing a remedy to the students/parents who alleged

excessive fee hike in any school, by constituting a

Page 4 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

Committee constituted under the newly incorporated

provisions, in the year 2014. Earlier also, there was a

Committee appointed by the High Court to look into such

complaints before which also no grievance was moved by

the students/parents. There is no ouster of jurisdiction as

was found by the High Court especially since the remedy

provided, even under the newly incorporated provisions in

the year 2014 was to the students or their parents to

approach the FFRC to ventilate their grievance of

unreasonable and excessive fee hike. Though appeals were

provided against the orders of the fee hike, there was no

remedy available to the school as such, to enforce a

reasonable hike in fees, which the students/parents were

obliged to make good for the educational and other facilities

provided by the school. There is hence no express or

implied ouster of the civil court jurisdiction and even Section

22 of the Act provides only for the ouster of jurisdiction in

respect of any matter in relation to which the Government or

its officers are conferred with the power to adjudicate. Prior

to the incorporation of the provision constituting the FFRC

Page 5 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

and even after that, there was no remedy available to the

school to recover the reasonable hike in fees. There is no

express or implied ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court as

held in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P.3.

7. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondents, before us and in the written

submission asserts that though the violation of Rule 158; that

is the absence of a proper notification of the fee hike was

raised before the civil court, in defence of the prayer for

recovery of money, the civil court rubbished it relying on

Section 22 of the Act. The Ld. Senior Counsel also contended

that at least with respect to the earlier academic year, the

suits are clearly barred on the ground of limitation.

8. As we noticed, the regulation of fees, even in unaided

schools was agitated before the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana in three Writ Petitions which are referred to in the

impugned judgment. Admittedly, when the fees were hiked

in the academic year 2009-10, the Government came out

with a notification putting a cap on the increase in tuition

3 1968 SCC OnLine SC 40

Page 6 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

fees, at 20% in every successive academic year. This was

challenged by the Association of Schools by CWP No. 11223

of 2009, Haryana Progressive Schools Conference (Regd.)

v. State of Haryana & Others. A Single Judge by order dated

27.04.2011 struck down the impugned order putting a cap of

20% on the fee hike in the successive academic years, as not

having been sanctioned by the statute. However, the

learned Single Judge observed that if the Director of School

Education finds, any resort to profiteering, increase of fees

resulting in commercialisation or charging of capitation fee,

then necessarily interference could be caused. It was also

found that the educational authorities had the right to

require the institutions to furnish yearly returns in Form IV;

which returns were also found to enable the Director to look

into, for the purpose of ensuring that no profiteering

commercialisation or charging of capitation fees are

resorted to by the institutions. The Writ Petitions were

disposed of in 2011.

9. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged

by the State of Haryana in LPA No. 721 of 2012 wherein the

Page 7 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

State, based on the liberty reserved to the Director of School

Education agreed for the disposal of the appeals on the

understanding that the needful would be done to examine

the issue of fee hike, as per the decision of a Division Bench

of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 20545 of

2009, Anti-Corruption and Crime Investigation Cell vs.

State of Punjab decided on 09.04.2013.

10. In the cited decision considering the raging

controversy regarding propriety of hike in fees made by

educational institutions, the Division Bench appointed three

committees, one each for the States of Punjab, Haryana and

the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Public School

Education Board who is furnished with the accounts and

records of the schools was directed to transmit the same to

the Committee; who would after hearing the stakeholders

look into the justification of the fee hike, based on the

materials placed before such Committees, on an individual

basis. It was also specified that, if the hike in fees were found

to be unwarranted, to that extent, directions can be issued to

the institutions to refund such excessive fees to the students.

Page 8 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

It is based on these pronouncements of the High Court that

the Rules were amended and Rules 158A and 158B were

introduced in the Rules with effect from 28.10.2014.

11. Rule 158A provided for the constitution of the FFRC

who can adjudicate upon any complaint received or on suo

moto motion, after due enquiry with regard to charging of

capitation fee or excessive fees, direct such institutions to

refund the capitation fee or excessive fees levied and

collected, together with a recommendation for withdrawal of

recognition of the school; after giving reasonable

opportunity to the institution. Rule 158B provided for an

appeal to be instituted, by any person or the management of

a school aggrieved with the orders of the FFRC. The power

conferred on the Committee is confined to a complaint

regarding levy of capitation fee or charging of excessive

fees which can be raised only by a parent or a student.

There can be no claim raised by the school before the FFRC

to enforce payment of fees by a student or a parent. There

can hence be found no express or implied ouster of

jurisdiction of the civil court.

Page 9 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

12. Section 22 of the Act also ousts the jurisdiction of the

civil courts only in matters where the Government or its

officers have been empowered to adjudicate upon. The

recovery of fees by an institution from the students or

parent, is not a power conferred on the Government or its

authorities by the statute or the rules prescribed. We hence

are of the opinion that there is no ouster of jurisdiction of

civil courts insofar as the recovery of fees, which are found

to be reasonable.

13. Admittedly, no student or parent approached the

Committee constituted as per the order of the Division

Bench of the High Court nor the Committee constituted

under the Rules as it stood amended in 2014. The

students/parents presumably, by reason of the order of the

Government introducing a cap of 20% on increase of fees in

each successive academic year, declined to pay the fees as

notified by the school. When the challenge to the

government order succeeded and the appeal filed by the

State was also disposed off; without any interference to the

judgment of the Single Bench, then the suits were filed in

Page 10 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

2014 within the period of limitation; the cause of action

having commenced with the disposal of the appeal. The

ground of limitation hence fails.

14. The notification of fees and funds to be charged from

the students as per Rule 148, has to be followed up with the

submission of details of minimum facilities provided and the

maximum fee charged, in Form VI. There is no contention

raised of the fees having not been notified to the

students/parents or Form VI having not been furnished in

accordance with Rule 148. In fact, the trial court clearly

made the recovery subject to the orders passed by the

FFRC. The Appellate Court directed the plaintiff school to

refund the amounts decreed and collected, if the decision of

the FFRC comes in favour of the students/parents.

15. A Review filed by the plaintiff-school was rejected,

which in our opinion was wrong. Admittedly, the

students/parents were paying the fees as notified earlier

and insofar as the excessive fees are concerned, the FFRC

was empowered to look into the same and decide on the

justification for the same. Obviously, if the decision of the

Page 11 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

FFRC is in favour of the students/parents, it can only inure to

their benefit, to the extent to which the fee hike is interfered

with by the FFRC. We are clear in our minds that the Review

Petitions ought to have been allowed since what was sought

to be reviewed was an error apparent on the face of the

record.

16. Insofar as the order in Second Appeal, we have

already found that the ouster of jurisdiction based on which

the trial court order, to the extent confirmed in appeal, was

set aside, is improper. Especially, since there can be no

ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court found from the Act and

Rules; either express or implied. On the basis of the above

findings, we allow the Civil Appeals restoring the order of

the trial court and modifying it only to the extent of the

interest granted, which shall be at 6% as modified by the

appellate court.

17. We are informed by the ld. Senior Counsel for the

appellant that the audit of the school in respect of the subject

academic years has been completed by the FFRC and no

illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness was found in

Page 12 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.

the hike proposed and notified by the school. The same has

not been placed on record but we make it clear that the trial

court’s order subjecting the decree of recovery to the

decision of the FFRC, would suffice insofar as protection

against any excessive levy of fees.

18. The Civil Appeals stand allowed on the above terms.

No costs.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

….……….……………….. CJI.

(B. R. GAVAI)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

………….……………………. J.

(N. V. ANJARIA)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 05, 2025.

Page 13 of 13 CA @SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Ors.