No. 5/30.03.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner through Mr. R. K. Choumal, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 41, 42, 46, 52, 53, 56, 60, 64, 66, 78, 81, 83, 84, 89, & 94 through Mr. Rajarshi Halder, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Heard Mr. Choumal, the Ld. Advocate in support of the revision and Mr. Halder, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainants – Respondents whom he is representing.  It appears that by the impugned order an interim direction has been passed affecting the order passed by the school authority enhancing the tuition fees.  Mr. Choumal, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionist, School contends that the impugned interim order has been passed at a stage when even the Written Version was not filed, not to speak of filing evidence on Affidavit by any of the parties.  The contention is that the subject matter under dispute as regards enhancement of tuition fees of the students is the power of managing committee and there cannot be any interference in respect of such enhancement of tuition fees.  The order impugned shows that the enhancement has been affected for the session 2009 – 2010 and it is argued that if this order is not modified the school authorities will suffer permanently as students who will be leaving the school in the meantime, will get complete exemption as recovery of such small amount from various students will be very difficult for the school authorities.  Contending aforesaid the interim order has been challenged on the ground of balance of convenience and inconvenience.

Mr. Halder, the Ld. Advocate representing some of the Respondents contended that the school authorities are exercising power to ehance tutition fees and there must be transparency as regards fixation of tuition fees.  Even at given time if there is justification for enhancement but the school authorities are bound to act reasonably in enhancing the tuition fee proportionate to the enhancement of cost, if any and the guardians are entitled to participate in such decision taking process and in the absence of the same not only there will be want of transparency but also encouragement of unfair trade practice.

Considering the aforesaid though we are of the opinion that there is prima facie case of the Complainants but on the question of balance of convenience we are of the opinion that the impugned order requires modification and the school authorities are permitted to recover the enhanced tuition fee from the Respondents but is directed to keep the enhanced amount in separate account in a Nationalized Bank and the school authorities are restrained from utilizing the said money and the said amount will be disbursed on the basis of the outcome of the final judgement of the complaint case.  We make it clear that the liberty granted by the Forum can be exercised by the school authorities but the condition imposed of prior discussion with the guardians of the students will not be given effect.  But we make it clear that order is without prejudice to any law prevailing or may be implemented at any point of time including any Government Circular including Memo No. 124-SC/AIS dated 27.05.2009 passed by the Director of School Education, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal.