Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The case  of  complainant, in nutshell  is that the  complainants  are the Representatives of the parents committee  of students of Deepti Convent School,Raniguda  Farm Rayagada. The students are facing  fees hike every year. It is alleged inter-alia that the OP No.3 inspite of hearing   the grievance  of  their parents started  hike of school fees. Inspite of objection made by the parents, the OP No.3 violated the  guidelines and instruction issued by the School & Mass Education Deptt.. It is also  alleged that the action of the Ops clearly violates the Education Act and Rules. So, the complaint  was filed.

4.               The  OP No.1 & 2  were set-exparte.

5.            The OP No.3  filed written version stating that the allegation   is totally false. The  complaint is not maintainable. The OP No.3 has not  paid any fee hike proposal but to maintain the teachers and standard food he has collected the fees from the students. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum  passed the following order:-

                      Xxxxx              xxxxxxxx              xxxxxx

                 “In the result, the complaints petition is allowed partly on contest against the Ops.

               The OP No.3 is ordered to strictly follow the instructions of Government of Odisha, School and Mass Education Departments directions of “Enhancement of Tuition fees by the School Authorities of the Private English Medium Schools in the states.” And not to hike fee more than 20 % from the last year. As it is also needs to the management of the school to give better quality education. The fee hike should be intimate early before Admission of the students.

           It is also ordered that, before the hike of fee, changing of dress, book etc. should be call a meeting of the representative of parents where it can be decided mutually.

          The complainant also ordered that, they should select a parents representative of 15 members  to take mutual decision on fee hike, dress, book etc. and not to create any breach of peace in the institution or not take any criminal laws to their hands. It is also open to the parents to admission their wards else where at any time.

        The OP No.1 & 2  are ordered to follow the instruction of the Govt. Mss and Education Department and keep observation the private Management English Medium Schools, with  proper investigations.

                The above orders also continues for the session 2014-15 with immediate effect. Both the parties are directed to follow the order and intimate the forum soon after compliance. “

7.           Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   learned District Forum has committed error in law  by passing the impugned order without considering the written version filed by the Ops with proper  perspectives. Moreover, he submitted that the Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain such type of allegation because these allegations can be decided either in Writ petition or by the Civil Court. He further submitted that learned District Forum should have applied judicial mind to the fact that   the OP No.3 has acted upon under  the provisions of the relevant Act. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.             Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,    perused the DFR and  impugned order.

9.                   It is admitted fact that the complainants  as representatives of the parents filed counter but there is nothing  mentioned in complaint  who are their students  which   should be followed by the terms and conditions of the Schools and Mass Education Deptt.  Apart from this the complaint does not  also show the details of the pay hike which is not made in accordance with the norm. On perusal of the DFR and documents it appears  that  there are the  allegations  without any  allegation of specific fee collected from respective   students.  The   students  for the year for a particular clauses  have been submitted to  prove the complaint case  unless there is specific provisions. Thus, it shows that it is a public interest litigation petition  which is not be entertained by the Consumer Forum. It is  to observe that the Consumer Forum has got no such statutory power  to entertain such nature of allegation  which  is normally entertained by the Hon’ble  High Courts, we hope and trust that in future the consumer forum will not entertain such dispute of complaint which is in the nature of public interest litigation petition.  

10.                   In this case also there is lacuna in the impugned order because the three complainants have come up to represent the entire parents of students of the school. Section-12(1)©  of the Act states as follows:-

                   “one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf , or for the benefit of all, consumers so interested. “                            

  11.              In view of above statutory provision no such specific order has been passed by the learned District Forum allowing three parents to represent on behalf of entire parents. Therefore, the complaint is also otherwise not maintainable.

12.                      In view of aforesaid analysis we hereby set-aside the impugned order.

                          The appeal stands allowed. No cost.         

                           Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                              DFR be sent back forthwith.