1 2025:CGHC:53256-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 779 of 2025 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 (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Deaprtment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Directorate Of Public Education Through Director, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4. Collector Korba District Korba (C.G.) 5. Delhi Public School- Balco Through Its Principal, Balco Nagar, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No. 5 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.01 11:37:33 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 31.10.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 2739 of 2020, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner with cost. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “a) Admit and allow this writ appeal; b) Set aside the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in WPC No. 2739 of 2020; c) Direct Respondent No. 5 to reconsider the appellant's application for exemption of tuition fees in light of financial hardship; d) Quash the order imposing costs of Rs. 15,000/-; and e) Grant any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The writ petitioner preferred the writ petition questioning the action of the respondent/ State authorities, particularly the Respondent No. 3-District Education Officer, Korba and the Respondent No. 4- 3 Collector, Korba as they failed to support the petitioner, who suffered economic duress, owing to outbreak of 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). 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 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.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended 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 4 bread earner in the family comprising of his father (a 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, he preferred a writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge with cost of Rs. 15,000/- against which the present writ appeal has been preferred. 6. In response to the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by the Respondent No.5-Delhi Public School, BALCO that the appellant 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 appellant was Rs.29,000/-, and, the applicable tuition fee was Rs.45,800/- per 5 annum for the Academic Session 2020-21, payable in four equal quarterly installments. It is contested further on the ground while furnishing the salary slips of the appellant 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 appellant has suppressed the material facts from this Court, therefore, he is not entitled to get the discretionary reliefs and the petition, as framed, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Perusal of the records shows that the appellant has prayed for relief based on this Court’s order dated 09.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 1040/2020, and on the hardships faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The said order had quashed the directions restraining private schools from collecting fees and clarified that schools may collect tuition fees. However, in cases where parents face genuine financial hardship, they may approach the school, which shall 6 verify their situation and pass an appropriate order. Thus, private institutions were not barred from collecting tuition fees, and no blanket exemption from fee payment was granted. 9. Further, it was pleaded by the appellant that due to COVID-19 Pandemic, he is facing financial crisis, but as revealed from the salary slips 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 appellant 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 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. 7 10. 7 10. In light of the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition in which the petitioner had suppressed material information regarding his salary, took into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar [(2017) 5 SCC 496], wherein the Apex Court strongly deprecated the misuse of judicial process through frivolous litigation, holding that such conduct burdens the courts, delays genuine matters, and must be deterred by the imposition of exemplary costs to preserve the sanctity of justice. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.15,000/-, payable to Respondent No.5– Delhi Public School, BALCO. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon considering the overall circumstances, particularly the fact that the matter arises out of an attempt by the appellant to seek exemption of tuition fees for his ward, a student studying in Delhi Public School, BALCO, this Court is of the opinion that while the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge do not call for interference on merits, the imposition of cost requires reconsideration. Having regard to the fact that the appellant approached this Court primarily to secure relief for his minor daughter, who is a student, and not for any personal or commercial gain, the ends of justice would be met if the cost of Rs.15,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Accordingly, while upholding the 8 dismissal of the writ petition on merits, the portion of the order imposing cost is hereby set aside. 12. In the result, the writ appeal is partly allowed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti