Apeejay School, an unaided private institution, filed multiple suits against students and their parents for recovery of unpaid dues following a fee hike introduced in the academic year 2009-10. Although the students continued their studies, parents refused to pay the hiked amount, alleging it was unreasonable and excessive.
The trial court ruled in favor of the school and allowed recovery. However, this was made subject to the findings of the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC), formed under the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 and the Rules, 2003.
On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision but directed a complete refund if FFRC ruled in favor of the parents. The school’s review plea—stating refund should be limited to the amount declared excessive by the FFRC—was dismissed, leading to a series of Second Appeals and eventually, a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Supreme Court Shares Contact List for VC Hearings on 4 August 2025
The Supreme Court focused on:
- Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to hear such recovery cases.
- Whether FFRC’s role eliminates the right of private schools to seek recovery through court.
- Whether limitation barred the suits.
- If the refund order by the Appellate Court was legally sustainable.
“There is no express or implied ouster of civil court jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act in matters concerning recovery of school fees.” — Supreme Court Bench
Read also:- Supreme Court Cancels Court No.16 Sitting on 4 August 2025, Cases Rescheduled
- Jurisdiction Clarified: The Apex Court rejected the High Court’s finding that civil courts lacked jurisdiction, stating no express or implied bar exists under Section 22 or the Rules for schools to file fee recovery suits.
- No Violation by School: The school had notified the fee hike and allowed students to continue without disruption. Since no parent or student approached the FFRC, the school's right to recover stood strong.
- Limitation Period: The Court dismissed the limitation argument, stating the cause of action started in 2014 when the appeal against the government's notification (restricting fee hikes) was finally disposed of.
- FFRC's Limited Power: The Court highlighted that FFRC can only deal with complaints from parents or students, not schools. Hence, schools cannot seek remedies through the FFRC but must rely on civil litigation.
- Refund Condition Modified: The Supreme Court held that if FFRC later finds the fee hike excessive, only the unjustified part must be refunded, not the entire amount.
Read also:- SC Closes Wife's Transfer Plea After Mutual Divorce Settlement Between Parties
“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.” — Bench’s Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and restored the trial court’s decree, with interest modified to 6%. It upheld the school’s right to recover hiked fees and clarified the limited jurisdiction of FFRC. The Court also noted that FFRC had already audited the school’s accounts for the relevant years and found no irregularities.
Case Title: Apeejay School vs. Dhriti Duggal & Others
Date of Judgment: August 5, 2025
Case Type: Civil Appeal (@ SLP (C) No. 8544 of 2022 & Connected Appeals)