Mumbai: The Thane Sessions Court has rejected an application filed by a Mumbra-based man against the Memon Education and Welfare Society’s Patel High School, an aided school whose main branch is located on Mohammed Ali Road, Mumbai. The application alleged that the school was charging extra fees of ₹32 per month, amounting to an annual fee of ₹375, for computer classes.
The court, while dismissing the complaint, held that the school was not at fault as it had strictly adhered to the Government Resolution (GR) dated April 11, 2000, and there was no violation of the provisions under the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act.
“The GR dated April 11, 2000, clearly shows that the State Government granted permission to schools to introduce computer classes for students from 5th to 7th standards and allowed them to charge nominal fees,” the court stated in its order while rejecting the complaint.
According to the complainant, his daughters were studying at the school. He accused the managing committee and staff of the school of violating the provisions of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act by charging additional fees.
The Magistrate court had initially referred the complaint for inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C. However, the investigative report found no incriminating evidence against the school, and the Magistrate subsequently dismissed the complaint based on the investigation findings.
The complainant then approached the Sessions Court and filed a revision application. He argued that the school was charging ₹32 per month and ₹375 annually per student, which was in contravention of the Act. He stated that the subject “Computer” was not compulsory under the Act, yet the school made it mandatory, thereby burdening parents with extra fees. He further contended that since the school is fully aided, it had violated the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act.
The complainant also argued that the Magistrate had erred in dismissing his complaint, allegedly ignoring the positive aspects of the police report. He sought intervention from the Sessions Court.
In response, the school opposed the complaint, asserting that it was motivated by a personal grudge and deserved dismissal. The school presented the GR of April 11, 2000, which authorized schools to introduce computer classes for students in standards 5 to 7 and permitted charging nominal fees.
The school explained that, following consultations with parents, it had introduced the computer subject and charged ₹30 per month or ₹370 annually. It argued that it had strictly complied with the GR and had not violated the Act.
The Sessions Court upheld the Magistrate Court’s decision, agreeing that the school had adhered to the GR and that no interference was warranted. Consequently, the complainant’s case was dismissed.
