School AC Charges Similar To Other Facilities Charges, Parents Must Bear: Delhi HC Rejects PIL

The PIL was filed by a parent alleging that a private school in Delhi, attended by his child, was charging ₹2,000 per month for AC facilities.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said, “The costs of air-conditioning services provided to the children in the School have to be borne by the parents as it is a facility provided to the children and is no different from the other charges such as lab fee and smart class fee levied. The parents while selecting the School have to be mindful of the facilities and the cost of the facilities provided to the children in the School. The financial burden of providing such facilities cannot be fastened on the school management alone.”

Advocate MK Gahlaut appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Prashant Manchanda appeared for the Respondents.

It was contended that it is the responsibility of the school management to provide AC facilities, which should be financed by the school itself.

The Court rejected the plea, asserting that parents should bear the costs associated with AC services, as it is akin to other charges like laboratory fees and fees for smart classes, which are typically borne by parents. The court emphasized that parents need to consider the facilities provided by schools and their associated costs when selecting a school for their children, stating that the financial burden cannot be solely placed on the school management.

Additionally, the Court noted that the Department of Education (DoE) was currently examining the matter and awaiting an action taken report.

The Bench concluded that the petition was not maintainable. The Court said, “The Annexure P-2 filed with this petition is the Fee Receipt issued by Respondent No. 5 School for the session 2023-24 and it duly records the entry of charges for air-conditioner. There is thus, a presumption that the said charges have been raised after apprising the DoE of the fee and charge schedule. In view of the admission of the Petitioner that the facility of air conditioning is being provided to the students in the classrooms, prima facie, there is no irregularity in the charge levied by the School.”

Cause Title: Manish Goel v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors., [2024:DHC:3580-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates M.K. Gahlaut and Varun Jain

Respondents: Additional Standing Counsel Prashant Manchanda, Advocate Nancy Shah, appeared on behalf of the Department of Education. Advocate Sahaj Garg represented the Union of India.