1 2025:CGHC:38407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for Order on 30.07.2025 Pronouncement for Order on 04.08.2025 WPC No.2739 of 2020 Ishwarilal Sahu S/o Shri Varun Singh Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No.37, Village Ganesh Nagar Bhadarapara Balco P.O. And P.S. Balco Nagar District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Of Public Education (Through Director), Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Delhi Public School- Balco (Through Principal), Balco Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Petitioner-Ishwarilal Sahu, appears in person For Respondents No.1 to 4/State : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appears along with Shri Ghanshyam Patel and Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocates Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV Order 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the action of the Respondent/State Authorities, particularly the Respondent No.3-District SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.08.04 18:06:59 +0530 2 Education Officer, Korba and the Respondent No.4-Collector, Korba as they failed to support the petitioner, who suffered economic duress, owing to COVID-19 Pandemic, to avail exemption from paying tuition fees to the Respondent No.5-Delhi Public School, BALCO for his ward, despite a mandate to that effect given by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No.1040 of 2020 (Annexure P-6). 2. It is pleaded by the petitioner that he is employed as a Labour with Kumar Cargo Solution, Korba, which renders services to the Bharat Aluminum Company Limited and, is the sole bread earner in the family comprising of his father (a differently abled senior citizen), mother, wife and daughter and, despite acute financial difficulties, he got the admission of his daughter in the Delhi Public School (Respondent No.5) at Balco Nagar, Korba. Further of his contention is that according to the fee structure of the said School for the year 2019-2020, he is required to pay tuition fees of Rs.11,450/- in four equal terms, but owing to outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic and, the consequent upon the severity measures adopted by his employer, financial and economic condition of him has been damaged acutely and since he found himself to be financially strained and unable to pay tuition fees to the Respondent No.5-Delhi Public School, BALCO, a prayer was, therefore, made to the Respondents No.1 to 4/State and the Respondent No.5-Delhi Public School, BALCO, to exempt him from payment of tuition fees and, since no help was provided to him, therefore, he was constrained to file this petition, while seeking the reliefs at para-10, as under :- A. To direct the Respondent State to exempt the Petitioner from the payment of tuition fee in respect to his daughter (Ms. 3 Renuka Sahu), a student of Class I in Respondent No.5/DPS: and B. To direct the Respondent State to ensure that education of the daughter of Petitioner i.e. Ms. Renuka Sahu with Respondent No.5/DPS does not suffer for the reason of inability of Petitioner to pay the tuition fee: and C. To direct the Respondent State to bear the cost of present litigation; and/or D. Any other relief(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. In response to the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by the Respondent No.5-Delhi Public School, BALCO that the petitioner had got admission of his daughter in Class-I on 19.04.2018 and at the relevant point of time, the net monthly salary of the petitioner was Rs.29,000/-, and, the applicable tuition fee was Rs.45,800/- per annum for the Academic Session 2020-2021, payable in four equal quarterly installments. It is contested further on the ground while furnishing the salary slips (Annexure R-5/3 Collectively) of the petitioner that the net monthly salary, after all deductions, of him for the month of January, 2020 was Rs.27,492/- and, Rs.28,331/- in the month of March, 2020, which was increased to Rs.29,169/- by November, 2020 and, he has been in continuous employment with the same employer, yet, a deliberate false statement was made by him before this Court that owing to COVID-19 Pandemic, his financial or economic condition has been deteriorated. It is contended further that since the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from this Court, therefore, he is not entitled to get the discretionary reliefs under a writ jurisdiction and, the petition, as framed, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the 4 entire papers annexed with this petition. 5. According to the plea taken by the petitioner, it appears that he is claiming the aforesaid reliefs based upon the order dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C)No.1040 of 2020 as also because, he had suffered a lot owing to COVID-19 Pandemic and consequent upon the severity measures adopted by his employer. 6. Perusal of the order dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed in the said writ petition would show that the petitioner therein, i.e.–Bilaspur Private School Management Association Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1973 had questioned the order dated 01.04.2020, whereby the Director, Public Instructions, Government of Chhattisgarh had restrained all the private educational institutions for collecting the school fees and, also the order dated 22.04.2020, whereby the said authority, through the District Education Officers, had called for a certificate from all the private educational institutions with regard to the fact that they have not demanded payment of tuition fees from any of the students. The directions, so issued, were however, quashed by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2020 and, simultaneously, looking to the exceptional circumstances, where a parent is facing hardship to pay the fees for some genuine reasons, a direction was issued at para 26, as under :- 26. …………... Accordingly, it is directed that in the event if any of the parent is facing any acute financial crisis whereby there being no means whatsoever to pay the school fees, let such parent/parents approach the respective school authorities, who in turn shall consider the same and if required can also get it duly verified or 5 scrutinized on their own asking the parent to provide such necessary informations with which it could be assessed, whether he is in a position to pay the fees or not, by seeking such information like financial status of the parents, the income details of the parents so also the assets in the name of parents etc and thereafter pass a suitable order. …………….” 7. In view of the aforesaid direction, it is, thus, evident that the private educational institutions have not been restrained from collecting the tuition fees and, instead, a direction, mentioned herein-above, was issued to pass a suitable order after considering the exceptional circumstances, if a parent is not in a position to pay the fees, but none have, however, been exempted from paying the tuition fees, as claimed by the petitioner herein. 8. It is to be seen further that although, it was pleaded by the petitioner that due to COVID-19 Pandemic, he is facing financial crisis, but as revealed from the salary slips (Annexure R-5/3 Collectively) submitted by the Respondent No.5-Delhi Public School, BALCO, it is evident that his net monthly salary for the month of January, 2020 was Rs.27,492/- (annually Rs.3,29,904/-) and for the month of March, 2020, it was Rs.28,331/- (annually Rs.3,39,972/-) and was found to be increased to the tune of Rs.29,169/- (annually Rs.3,50,028/-) by November, 2020, whereas, the annual tuition fees of the institution was just Rs.45,800/- for the Academic Session 2020-2021. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is facing any financial crisis owing to COVID-19 Pandemic and/or, in any manner unable to pay the tuition fees, as alleged by him and, rather it appears that under the garb of COVID-19 6 Pandemic, he is trying to get the exemption from paying the tuition fees while suppressing those salary slips deliberately, irrespective of the fact that this Court in the above-referred matter has already quashed the direction dated 22.04.2020, whereby, the Director, Public Instructions, Government of Chhattisgarh had restrained the private educational institutions to charge the tuition fees. 9. In view of the aforesaid background, the petition as framed, while suppressing the material facts pertaining to his salary, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs as the Supreme Court in the matter of “Dnyandeo Sabaji naik and another vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others" reported in (2017) 5 Supreme Court Case 496 had deprecated the conduct of the litigants in flooding the Court with frivolous litigations, as a result of which, the genuine matters, which require consideration, are delayed. The relevant observation made therein at paragraphs 13 and 14 reads as under:- "13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 14. Courts across the legal system- this Court not being an exception- are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They 7 consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation 8 cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner." 10. In view of the aforesaid mandate given by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the instant petition, as framed, by suppressing the material facts from this Court, is accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), which shall be payable to the Respondent No.5- Delhi Public School, BALCO, within a period of 60 days from today, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization. All the pending interlocutory applications shall stand rejected. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane