No Express or Implied Ouster of Civil Court’s Jurisdiction for School Fee Recovery: Supreme Court—Decree Subject to FFRC Review

Jurisdiction Ousted Only Where State Officers Are Empowered to Adjudicate—No Such Power for School Fee Recovery,” Supreme Court of India (Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria) delivered a significant ruling in Apeejay School v. Dhriti Duggal & Anr., deciding the maintainability of civil suits for recovery of enhanced school fees by unaided private schools under the Haryana School Education Act, 1995. The Court restored the trial court’s decree for recovery, subject to the decision of the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC), and clarified that there was “no express or implied ouster of the civil court’s jurisdiction” under Section 22 of the Act in such matters. Appeals against the High Court’s contrary finding were allowed, and the order was modified to reduce interest to 6%.

The dispute traces back to the 2009-10 academic year, when the appellant, an unaided private school, notified a fee hike. Parents resisted the increased fees, continuing to pay at earlier rates, after a government notification capped annual increases at 20%. The school’s challenge led to the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court striking down the cap, holding, “If the Director of School Education finds any resort to profiteering, commercialisation, or charging of capitation fee, interference could be caused. Educational authorities had the right to require institutions to furnish yearly returns in Form IV… to ensure no profiteering or capitation fees.” The State’s appeal against this decision was withdrawn in 2014, and the school then filed suits for fee recovery, which were decreed by the trial court, subject to any FFRC decision on the reasonableness of the fee hike.

The litigation journey saw the appellate court affirming the decree but directing that, if the FFRC found in favor of parents, the entire amount be refunded—a direction later challenged for being excessive, as “refund can be only to the extent the FFRC interferes with the fee hike.”

The High Court, however, set aside the decree, holding that the Haryana School Education Act and Rules, specifically Section 22, ousted the civil courts’ jurisdiction because the FFRC constituted an alternate remedy.

At the heart of the case was the question: Does Section 22 of the Haryana School Education Act oust the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of fee recovery by unaided private schools? The appellant argued that neither the Act nor the Rules conferred adjudicatory power upon any government authority for such suits, and that the FFRC’s remit was strictly limited to complaints by parents or students regarding “capitation fee or excessive fees,” not for schools seeking enforcement of reasonable fee hikes.

The Supreme Court noted, “There is hence no express or implied ouster of the civil court jurisdiction and even Section 22 of the Act provides only for the ouster of jurisdiction in respect of any matter in relation to which the Government or its officers are conferred with the power to adjudicate.” Citing Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., the Court reiterated that ouster of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred.

The respondents maintained that the school failed to comply with Rule 158 (regarding proper notification of fee hike) and contended that the suits were time-barred for some academic years. The Court rejected these grounds, observing, “The cause of action having commenced with the disposal of the appeal… the suits were filed in 2014 within the period of limitation; the ground of limitation hence fails.”

The Supreme Court delivered clear findings on each pivotal issue:

On ouster of jurisdiction:

“Section 22 of the Act also ousts the jurisdiction of the civil courts only in matters where the Government or its officers have been empowered to adjudicate upon. The recovery of fees by an institution from the students or parent, is not a power conferred on the Government or its authorities by the statute or the rules prescribed. We hence are of the opinion that there is no ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts insofar as the recovery of fees, which are found to be reasonable.”

On the remedy before FFRC:

“The power conferred on the Committee is confined to a complaint regarding levy of capitation fee or charging of excessive fees which can be raised only by a parent or a student. There can be no claim raised by the school before the FFRC to enforce payment of fees by a student or a parent. There can hence be found no express or implied ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court.”

On review and modification:

“We are clear in our minds that 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… if the decision of the FFRC is in favour of the students/parents, it can only inure to their benefit, to the extent to which the fee hike is interfered with by the FFRC.”

On limitation:

“When the challenge to the government order succeeded and the appeal filed by the State was also disposed of without any interference to the judgment of the Single Bench, then the suits were filed in 2014 within the period of limitation; the ground of limitation hence fails.”

On fee notification compliance:

“There is no contention raised of the fees having not been notified to the students/parents or Form VI having not been furnished in accordance with Rule 148. In fact, the trial court clearly made the recovery subject to the orders passed by the FFRC.”

Summing up its decision, the Supreme Court stated: “We allow the Civil Appeals restoring the order of the trial court and modifying it only to the extent of the interest granted, which shall be at 6% as modified by the appellate court… the trial court’s order subjecting the decree of recovery to the decision of the FFRC, would suffice insofar as protection against any excessive levy of fees.”

Notably, the Court was informed that “the audit of the school in respect of the subject academic years has been completed by the FFRC and no illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness was found in the hike proposed and notified by the school.”

Thus, the civil appeals were allowed, the trial court’s decree for recovery of fees (subject to the FFRC’s findings) was restored with interest at 6%, and there was no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: August 5, 2025