2017 PLP 385 (YLRN)

SHAHNWAZ TARIQ, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioners have agitated their grievance against the respondents and have sought the following reliefs:-- a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.2 and 4 to recall the increase in fees from the students of Nursery to XII and to recover the fees as of 2009 and to keep the same being reasonable. b) Direct the respondent No.1 to make check and balance over the respondents Nos.3 to 6 in order to provide proper education to the students and to maintain the rules and bye laws of the school if any and to recall the increasing in the fees and to avoid the further increasing. c) Direct the respondents Nos.2 to 4 to restore the rule of concession of 50% concession in the fees in case of two or more students of the same family are studying in the school. d) Direct the respondent Nos.3 to 6 to maintain the standard of the education in Public School Hydeyabad and to avoid the harassment and mental and physical punishment to the students. e) Direct the respondents to produce the record of the accounts i.e. income and expenditure of the School from 2009 to date along with audit thereof and their bye laws. f) Direct the respondents to ensure that no punishment of mental torture. Moral and physical would be given to the students in case of delay in payment of fees. g) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances.

2. Relevant facts pertaining to the instant petition are that the petitioners are the parents of the students studying in classes from Nursery to Intermediate in the Public School Hyderabad, which was established in July, 1961 in order to provide education of good standard to the children. It has further stated that owing to the policy of the present administration, the students have been deprived of their rights of education in Public School Hyderabad by unreasonable increase in the fee from 10 to 60 %, though it is an autonomous body having budget accorded by the Government of Sindh and it is policy of the Government to provide education in Government schools free of cost along with books. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 are illegally charging re-admission fee while promoting the students from class V to class VI. About 10 years back, it was settled policy of the respondents that if more than one student of same family is studying in school, 50% sibling concession fee was allowed, but the respondents have illegally stopped said concession. The administration and teaching staff of the respondents used to award punishment to the students on account of delay in payment of fees which demoralized the students, and in case of any delay, at the most a notice could be issued to the parents directly and the punishment or harassment is not warranted by law. Petitioners served a notice upon the administration and also lodged peaceful protest against such increase in fee but of no avail.

3. The respondents Nos.3 to 6 filed their comments and vehemently denied the averments of petition. It is also averred that Public School Hyderabad is not a statutory/corporate body as such this Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief to the petitioners against the affairs of Public School Hyderabad in view of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Public School Hyderabad, its managing body and its Board of Governors have not been constituted under any Provincial Ordinance or any Act of Parliament. The role assigned to the Government of Sindh, Education & Literacy Department is restricted to the extent of constituting a Board of the Governors for Public School Hyderabad for a fixed period. The revision of fee is made to cope up with the price hike and inflation. As per policy in vogue since years, 20% brother/sister concession in the fee is being permitted which is continued. The school authorities used to write a note in school dairy of the students regarding payment of fee within time. The school authorities are working in accordance with the Rules and Bye- laws of the school under supervision of the Board of Governors and strictly following the norms and moral values of the society and emphasizing on character building of the students. The legal notice sent by the petitioners was replied through their counsel. The petitioners have filed this petition with mala fide intention just to harass and pressurize the respondent's authority, hence petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are the parents of the students studying in Public School Hyderabad, which was established in order to provide standard education to the children, but due the illegal policies of the management for heavy increase in fee, the students have been deprived from their right of education in Public School Hyderabad which is an autonomous body, having budgetary allocation by the Government of Sindh. The act of enhancement of fee is against the policy of the Government to provide education in Government schools free of cost alongwith books. He lastly contended that the respondents be directed to produce the record of accounts i.e. income and expenditure along with audit reports from the year 2009 till date before this Court for scrutiny. The increase of fee may be declared illegal and the administration strictly be directed to charge fee at the rate of 2009.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 to 6 has urged that the Public School Hyderabad is neither a statutory body nor corporate body as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Public School, its Managing Body and its Board of Governors have not been constituted under any Provincial Ordinance or any Act of Parliament. The School for all purposes and functions, is an Educational Institute to impart best education to the children, hence the question of enhancement of fee cannot be challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Government of Sindh, Education & Literacy Department has a limited role to the extent of constitution of the Board of Governors for Public School Hyderabad. He also contended that petitioners are not aggrieved persons within the meaning of Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The School is providing quality of education to the students hailing from all sections of society without discrimination of caste and creed. The revision of fee is made to cope up with the price hike and inflation. It is clearly mentioned in the Form that all the sections are treated as separate academic units for all educational purposes. The policy of concession of 20% in fee is continued for brother/sister students, but petitioners have wrongly leveled such allegations. The School authorities and teachers take the students and their parents in high esteem, and they have neither awarded punishment nor de-moralized the students for recovery of fee. The School Authorities use to write a note in school dairy of the student regarding payment of fee in time. A number of parents have not paid the fee of their children for several months and administration reserves its right to cancel their admission as per the terms and conditions written on admission form. The School Authorities are working in accordance with the Rules and Bye-laws of the school and supervision of Board of Governors and strictly following the norms and moral values of the society and emphasis on character building of the students. The legal notice sent by the petitioners was replied through their counsel. He lastly urged that the relief sought by the petitioners includes the factual controversy, hence petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned AAG Sindh has contended that the respondents are running the administration of the Public School Hyderabad properly under its Bye-laws and supervision of Board of Governors. The issues agitated by the petitioners involve factual controversy as same could not be determined under the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as such the facts and circumstances of the petition does not fall within the ambit of article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, hence petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their arguments and examined the available record with their assistance.

8. Perusal of the record and consideration of arguments reflect that the petitioners have challenged the increase in fee by the respondent administration of school and also prayed that the respondents be directed to produce the record of accounts i.e. income and expenditure along with audit reports from the year 2009 before this Court for scrutiny. On the other hand, the respondent administration of School has taken plea that considering the inflation, the fees have been increased and all affairs of school are being carried out under Rules and Bye-laws of the school under supervision of the Board of Governors, therefore, increase in fee cannot be termed as illegal. However, the respondents have confirmed that the policy of concession of fee of 20% is still continued for brothers/sisters students of same family.

9. In this context, we would refer the case of Province of the Punjab through Secretary Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari, PLD 1997 SC 351, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction is not bound to interfere in all circumstances. Exercise of discretion by High Court would be proper if the Court had not interfered with the order of the Authority, even if it felt that said order whereby the Authority rendered the order of its subordinate Authority as null and void, was not strictly legal. Situations and circumstances where High Court may not interfere in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction stated. The august Court has further held that object of a superior Court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction is to foster justice, preserve rights and to right a wrong and keeping this object in view, it may in equity, set aside or annual a void judgment or enjoin enforcement by refusing to intervene in the circumstances of the case before it. It has further held that void order is not always to be struck down regardless of the consequences.

10. It has been further emphasized by the respondents that neither the administration nor teachers are causing any kind of harassment to the students for recovery of fee and they are only maintaining a note for the parents in the dairy of students for payment of fee in time, which otherwise is a general practice and procedure in vogue in all educational institutions and it cannot be counted as harassment or de-moralization by the administration to the students. Moreover, the issue of calling the record and audit reports from the year 2009 and onwards for scrutiny i.e. income and expenditure of the School, which absolutely involves factual controversy as such same is beyond the ambit of this Court.

11. For the reasons and circumstances discussed above and identical case law referred supra, we agree with the contention raised by the counsel for respondents that the reliefs claimed by the petitioners do not fall within the scope of invoking extra ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan.

12. It is significant to mention that this Court has already disposed of the connected C.Ps. No.D-1349 of 2011, D-884 of 2011, D-2343 of 2013 and D-923 of 2011, whereby the Commissioner Hyderabad has been appointed as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Public School, Hyderabad. Petitioners being aggrieved with the present management, have approached this Court which has already been dissolved, therefore, petitioners are at liberty to approach the new management for redressal of their grievance, if so advised. Consequently, instant petition being devoid of any legal merit sands dismissed along with pending applications if any with no order as to costs. MH/A-21/Sindh Petition dismissed.