The Madras High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents to forbear the fifth respondent (Higher Secondary School) from collecting any exorbitant fees from the students not more than the fees stipulated by the Tamil Nadu Government and in case of any such collection of excessive fees, it shall be refunded to the respective students and the said process shall be monitor by the respondents.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V.Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu asked the Petitioner-in Person as to whether his child is studying in the school. The Petitioner-in Person submits that his child left the school in the year 2016.
Prior to the present petition, the petitioner filed a Petition in 2015. In the said petition, the petitioner sought the relief of mandamus to direct the Special Officer of the Private School Fees Determination Committee to take necessary action and conduct an enquiry about the excess fees collected by the school for the period 2014-2015.
A Division Bench of the High Court, under its judgment and order dated 27.10.2015, disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner, along with the petition filed by the fifth respondent .
The petitioner’s child is not in the school since 2016. In case the parents of the any student are aggrieved, they can approach the court making a grievance regarding charging of excess fees or otherwise. The petitioner would not have locus standi for the same , the Bench observed.
Earlier, the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to charging of excess fees is already decided by the Division Bench of this court in the petition filed by the petitioner under the judgment dated 27.10.2015.
The party-in-person submits that now the academic year is different. Though the academic year is different, the issue remains the same about the charging of excess fees that has already been dealt with.
“In appropriate cases, if the parents of any student studying in the fifth respondent school approach the court, we may consider the grievance on its own merits”, the Bench said .