Full Text
Translation output
$-13
*
+ teachers PROGl^SSIVEWELFAREORGN Petitioner
IhroughiMr.K.Viswanath, Advocate
*
+ teachers PROGl^SSIVEWELFAREORGN Petitioner
IhroughiMr.K.Viswanath, Advocate
VERSUS
SHISHU BHARATt VIDYALAYA&ORS. Respondents
Through:Mr.C.S.Gupta,Advoeate'for respondents No.l and 2.
Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for respondents
INO.j to 5.
Through:Mr.C.S.Gupta,Advoeate'for respondents No.l and 2.
Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for respondents
INO.j to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
23.08.2013
The following reliefs are claimed in the writpetition:-
(a) fo quash the notice of04 04 9019 nf j
Ser-.he fee ofthestndftfhfSoTpt^t^
^ 2 transfer s^LnL'^permlef'" s2tion direct-respondentNo.3 to initiate action under
Admittedly, the learned counsel for respondents No.l and 2 states that the school Shishu Bharti Vidhyalaya has already closed down and presently there is no student studying in the said school.
2013:DHC:7271
Consequently, the writ petition has become infructuous. Since no student has been admitted inthe school for the Academic Year 2013-
14 and the tuition fee for the year 2012-13 stands already paid, it would be an unnecessary exercise to go into the validity or otherwise ofthe notice dated 4"^ April, 2012 issued by respondent No.l raising the tuition fee by Rs.800/- per month. The second reliefsought in the writ petition has also become infructuous with the closing down of the school. The third relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted in view of the closer of the school. It would be pertinent to note that there is no challenge in this writ petition to the closer ofthe
( school, an event which has taken place during the pendency of the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that an order may be passed for refunding the excess tuition fee recovered from the parents of the students, pursuant to the notice dated 4"" April, 2012.
The petitioner before this Court is asociety and the tuition fee for the
Academic Year 2012-13 was paid by the parents and not by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to seek refund of the tuition fee paid by the parents ofthe students in the Academic f
Year 2012-13. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way ofany ofthe parents seeking refund of the tuition fee paid by them, pursuant to the notice dated 4^ April, 2012 on the ground that the enhancement oftuition fee by respondent
No.l was illegal and unjustified. ^
V.K. JAIN, J
AUGUST 23, 2013
23.08.2013
The following reliefs are claimed in the writpetition:-
(a) fo quash the notice of04 04 9019 nf j
Ser-.he fee ofthestndftfhfSoTpt^t^
^ 2 transfer s^LnL'^permlef'" s2tion direct-respondentNo.3 to initiate action under
Admittedly, the learned counsel for respondents No.l and 2 states that the school Shishu Bharti Vidhyalaya has already closed down and presently there is no student studying in the said school.
2013:DHC:7271
Consequently, the writ petition has become infructuous. Since no student has been admitted inthe school for the Academic Year 2013-
14 and the tuition fee for the year 2012-13 stands already paid, it would be an unnecessary exercise to go into the validity or otherwise ofthe notice dated 4"^ April, 2012 issued by respondent No.l raising the tuition fee by Rs.800/- per month. The second reliefsought in the writ petition has also become infructuous with the closing down of the school. The third relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted in view of the closer of the school. It would be pertinent to note that there is no challenge in this writ petition to the closer ofthe
( school, an event which has taken place during the pendency of the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that an order may be passed for refunding the excess tuition fee recovered from the parents of the students, pursuant to the notice dated 4"" April, 2012.
The petitioner before this Court is asociety and the tuition fee for the
Academic Year 2012-13 was paid by the parents and not by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to seek refund of the tuition fee paid by the parents ofthe students in the Academic f
Year 2012-13. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way ofany ofthe parents seeking refund of the tuition fee paid by them, pursuant to the notice dated 4^ April, 2012 on the ground that the enhancement oftuition fee by respondent
No.l was illegal and unjustified. ^
V.K. JAIN, J
AUGUST 23, 2013
JUDGMENT