Read Time: 07 minutes

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition by a school student against the new fee structure introduced by a CBSE affiliated school in Ghaziabad observing that “the mere presence of the CBSE as a respondent in the petition is not sufficient to enable this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

The principal grievance of the petitioner was with regard to the new fee structure as introduced by the school from the academic year 2017-18 onwards. The case made out in the petition is that on April 2, 2018, the School denied permission to the petitioner to attend classes on account of non-payment of fees which, according to the petitioner, was charged arbitrarily, without consulting the parents of the students of the school, and without giving any reasons for the same.

 Adv Shailendra Kumar Singh appearing for the petitioner contended that the present petition is maintainable and ought to be entertained by the Court, on account of the fact that the relief sought is directed against the CBSE, the head office of which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He further argued that the CBSE is empowered to pass directions inter alia regarding fee hike to affiliated schools like the respondent/School.  

Ms. Seema Dolo, counsel appearing for the CBSE, on the other hand, submitted that although the reliefs in the present petition were sought against the CBSE, the averments in the petition pertain to the school, including inter alia with regard to the increase of fees. According to her, since the school is situated in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and since the principal grievances of the petitioner are against the School, the Delhi High Court would not be the appropriate forum to entertain the petition.

Having regard to the principles distilled in the judgment in the five judge bench of the High Court in  M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 181 DLT 658 (LB): AIR 2011 Del 174 , the bench led by Justice Prateek Jalan noted that : “the mere presence of the CBSE as a respondent in the petition is not sufficient to enable this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court may decline to entertain a writ petition, if it comes to the conclusion that it is not the most appropriate Court for the purpose. In arriving at such a conclusion, the Court will consider inter alia the existence of a more appropriate forum where a petitioner could effectively agitate her grievances”.

The Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner is resident in the State of Uttar Pradesh, where the school is also located. The school is also recognized by the State of Uttar Pradesh. As stated above, the foundation of the grievances ventilated in the petition was based upon allegations against the school.

It was further observed that “the petitioner’s contentions regarding improper or inadequate oversight by the respondent authorities implicate not just the CBSE, but even more importantly, the State of Uttar Pradesh. The issues which the petitioner has raised in this Court can very well be raised before the jurisdictional High Court, which is entertaining allied grievances in the writ petition filed by Mr. Singh in his own name, alongwith other parents. Such a course will not prejudice the adjudication of the petitioner’s disputes, as the CBSE is a central body, and can defend proceedings anywhere in the country.”