Full Judgment Text
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)
J U D G M E N T
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
parents, which recovery was of the fee hike notified to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.08.05
16:22:14 IST
Reason:
parents and their wards, which the parents failed to remit.
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
1 2
Act, 1995 and Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 ; 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
3
held in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. .
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.
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)
J U D G M E N T
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
parents, which recovery was of the fee hike notified to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.08.05
16:22:14 IST
Reason:
parents and their wards, which the parents failed to remit.
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
1 2
Act, 1995 and Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 ; 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
3
held in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. .
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.