The Supreme Court held that the civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate fee recovery suits filed by unaided private schools, as there is no express or implied ouster of jurisdiction under the Haryana School Education Act and Rules. The statutory remedy before the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee is available only to parents/students to challenge excessive fees, not to schools for recovery.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Apeejay School, an unaided private institution, filed suits for recovery of fees against students and their parents. The dispute arose from a fee hike implemented by the school for the academic year 2009-10, which the respondents refused to pay, continuing instead to remit only the pre-hike amount. The school’s suits were initially decreed by the trial court. While the appellate court largely affirmed this decision, it reduced the interest on the decreed amount from 12% to 6% and crucially directed that the entire recovered sum be refunded if the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC) later ruled in the parents’ favour. The High Court subsequently set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the civil courts had no jurisdiction due to an alternative statutory remedy under the Haryana School Education Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against this decision of the High Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the appellant-school filing suits for recovery of unpaid hiked fees in the trial court, which decreed the suits. The defendants’ appeals resulted in a modification of the interest rate but an affirmation of the decree. The school then filed a review petition against the appellate court’s direction for a full refund upon a favourable FFRC finding, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the school filed 31 second appeals against the review dismissal, while parents filed 27 second appeals against the appellate decree. The High Court allowed these second appeals, setting aside the lower courts’ orders on the ground of jurisdictional bar under the Haryana School Education Act. This led to the filing of special leave petitions in the Supreme Court, which granted leave and culminated in the present civil appeals.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings
Court Observation:
The Court observed that there was no express or implied ouster of the civil court’s jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of fees by a school. It held that the statutory remedy under the Act and Rules, specifically before the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC), was available only to parents or students to challenge a fee hike as excessive. Conversely, the school had no corresponding forum under this mechanism to enforce its recovery claims. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred by Section 22 of the Act, as the matter of fee recovery was not a power conferred upon the government or its officers for adjudication. The appellate court’s direction for a full refund was also deemed erroneous, as any potential refund ordered by the FFRC could only be to the extent of the fee hike found to be unjustified.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. It restored the decree of the trial court as modified by the first appellate court, confirming the school’s right to recover the hiked fees. The Court upheld the appellate court’s modification reducing the interest rate to 6% per annum. It further clarified that the trial court’s original stipulation—making recovery subject to the outcome of the FFRC’s decision—provided sufficient safeguard for the parents. Consequently, the appellate court’s direction for a full refund was vacated, and it was held that any refund, if ordered by the FFRC, would only be to the extent of the specific fee hike found to be excessive.
Case Details:
Case Title: Apeejay School vs. Diriti Duggal & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 925 Civil Appeal No.: (@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8544 of 2022) along with connected appeals. Date of Judgement: August 05, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B. R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice N. V. Anjaria
Download The Judgement Here