School Cannot Expel Student For Non-Payment Of Fees Before Completion Of Elementary Education: Bombay High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, Division Bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode, recognising the centrality of education in a child's life, intervened in favour of a 13-year-old girl who was removed from her school over unpaid fees of Rs. 23,900. The Court found the school's action of issuing a transfer certificate to be illegal and contrary to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, directing Father Agnel School in Bhandara District to re-admit the student while ordering her parents to clear the outstanding dues within two weeks.
The petition was filed by a minor student through her father challenging the issuance of a Transfer Certificate by a private unaided minority school on the ground of non-payment of fees. The student was admitted to the school in Standard VI for the academic year 2023–24 and was promoted to Standard VII in 2024–25. On 24 March 2025, the school issued a notice demanding payment of Rs. 23,900/- towards outstanding fees within three days, failing which a Transfer Certificate would be issued. The school subsequently issued the Transfer Certificate dated 27 March 2025, removing her name from the rolls.
The petitioners contended that the action violated the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The school argued that being a minority unaided institution affiliated to CBSE, the Act of 2009 was inapplicable and that repeated notices had been issued for non-payment of fees. It also relied on judicial precedents concerning minority institutions. The Education Officer had granted approval on 26 April 2022 applying the Act of 2009 to the school. The school also admitted applicability of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011.
The Court recorded that “A short question which falls for consideration is whether the student of 7th standard can be denied education in the school on the ground that she has not paid the fees as asked by the school?”
Referring to Article 21-A, the Bench noted: “21-A-Right to Education – The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may by law determine.”
On the conduct of the school, the Court observed: “It is thus clear that in one breath, respondent No. 7 has shown concern about safety of petitioner No.1 and in another, has issued a transfer certificate in favour of petitioner No. 1.”
After examining the approval dated 26.4.2022 and the communication dated 11.10.2007, the Court stated: “Thus, holistic reading of communications dated 11.10.2007 and 26.4.2022 would clearly reveal that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have agreed to abide by rules and regulations stipulated by Government of Maharashtra.” It further recorded: “The act of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 of taking benefit under communications dated 11.10.2007 and 26.4.2022 on one hand by running the school and on other hand saying that the provisions of Act of 2009 are not applicable is a striking example of unfairness and arbitrary action.”
On applicability of the Act of 2009, the Court stated: “Thus, in our considered opinion, the provisions of the Act of 2009 are squarely applicable to respondent No.7 - school being run by respondent No.8 - Management.” It added: “Having once held that the provisions of the Act of 2009 are applicable to respondent Nos.7 and 8, the impugned action of expelling petitioner No.1 from the school before the completion of her elementary education is clearly in violation of Section 16(4) of the aforesaid Act of 2009 and is therefore unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
Regarding the Fee Regulation Act, 2011, the Court recorded: “Having admitted so as to the applicability of the Act of 2011, the impugned action of expelling the petitioner No.1 from respondent No.7 - School on the ground of non-payment of fees is again unsustainable in the eyes of law.” It further noted that the petitioners had asserted readiness to pay the fees.
The Bench concluded: “Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons, in our considered opinion, the impugned action at the behest of respondent Nos.7 and 8 in expelling the petitioner No.1 is illegal and bad in law, and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
The Court ordered that “The writ petition is partly allowed.” It directed that “The impugned action at the behest of respondent Nos.7 and 8 in expelling the petitioner No.1 from the respondent No.7 - School by issuing the Transfer Certificate dated 27.03.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners to deposit the arrears of fees within a period of two weeks from today.”
“Because of the unfortunate litigation faced by the petitioner No.1 at the tender age, the respondent Nos.7 and 8 are directed not to charge the late fees or penal interest on the arrears of fees in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitin A. Lalwani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P. P. Pendke, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6/State; Mr. P. Sathianathan, Advocate with Mr. W. T. Mathew, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8
Case Title: Ku. Chitrakshi D/o Yogesh Rangwani & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-NAG:3170-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3228 of 2025
Bench: Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode
