- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
G.VEERASAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed W.P.No.23523 of 2023 before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return school fees allegedly retained in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018. [1][2][3][4]
The petitioner’s daughters had studied at the concerned school, and he sought refund of fees for the academic years 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 after deciding to discontinue their education following his transfer out of Tamil Nadu. [5]
The petition was heard by Justice C. Kumarappan on 29.08.2025. [6][7][8]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the private educational institution in relation to a contractual dispute concerning refund of school fees. [9][10][11]
- Whether the disputed fee-refund claim could be adjudicated in writ proceedings despite the parties’ conflicting accounts and the asserted need for oral and documentary evidence. [12][13]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner submitted that his daughters were admitted to the school and that, under the fee arrangement, payment of fees upfront would entitle him to a refund of Rs.55,000/- after completion of the third year. [5]
- He stated that he paid Rs.2,00,000/- per child for the academic years 2022–2023 to 2024–2025, in addition to Rs.66,000/- as tuition fee, and sought refund of the fees for the remaining academic years after his transfer out of Tamil Nadu. [5]
- He contended that the school failed to return the fees and sought a mandamus under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018. [5]
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable against a private educational institution, that the 2018 Act did not apply to the concerned school, and that the prayer was defective. [9]
- The concerned school contended that the fee-refund arrangement was governed by an agreement and that resolution of the dispute required oral and documentary evidence concerning disputed facts. [12][13]
- The school maintained that, under the agreed scheme, the petitioner would become entitled to a specified refund only upon completion of the third academic year. [13]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| St. Mary's Education Society and Others vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, (2023) 4 SCC 498 | The opinion refers to the Supreme Court’s decision while considering the maintainability of writ proceedings against a private educational institution. [14][15] | The Court applied the principle that a private entity may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where the dispute has a nexus with a public duty; the present fee-refund dispute was contractual and involved no public-law element. [10][15] |
| Unitech Limited and Others vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 35 | The petitioner relied on this decision to contend that a writ petition arising from a contract could be maintained. [15] | The Court distinguished the case because the writ there was filed against an instrumentality of the State, whereas the respondent here was admittedly a private entity. It therefore held that the decision was inapplicable. [15] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the email correspondence produced with the typed set and found that the parties’ accounts were materially disputed. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the balance fees, while the school relied on an agreement under which refund would arise only after completion of the third academic year. [16][13]
Because resolution of those disputes required the parties to present evidence and documents, the Court held that it was impractical to adjudicate them in writ jurisdiction. [13]
The Court further held that, although an unaided private educational institution performing a service with a public-law element may in some circumstances be treated as “State” under Article 12, a writ against such an entity requires a nexus between the dispute and a public duty. [10]
The claim in this case concerned refund of school fees under a contract between the petitioner and the private school, and therefore did not involve a public-law element. [10]
The Court also rejected the argument that regulation of schools under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018, by itself made the dispute amenable to writ jurisdiction. Regulatory supervision alone was insufficient where the underlying claim remained contractual. [11]
Holding and Implications
WRIT PETITION DISMISSED. The Court imposed no costs but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum in accordance with law for recovery of the alleged fee refund. [17]
The direct consequence is that the fee dispute was not decided on its merits in the writ proceedings and may be pursued before a civil forum. No new precedent was set.
W.P.No.23523 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.23523 of 2023
G.Veerasamy ...Petitioner -Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai. 2.The Director,
Department of School Education, Chennai.
3.The Cambridge Assessment International Education, Represented by its Regional Director, New Delhi.
4.The Cambridge Assessment International Education, Represented by its Director,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
5.12 Global Virtual Learning Private Limited, Represented by its Directors,
Krishnakumar and Nisha Nancy Delquin, No.20 & 21, Balavinayakar Avenue, Thoraipakkam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu.
1/8
5.12 Global School, Represented by Head of School, Fathima,
No.3 and 4B, 3rdPanchayat Link Road, Near Doshi Etopia,
Perungudi, Chennai. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to return the school fees held by the 5threspondent, in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 and for consequential orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran,
Senior Advocate
for Mr.Sharath Chandran
For R1 & R2 : Mrs.Mythreye Chandra,
Special Government Pleader
For R3 to R5 : No appearance
For R6 : Mr.K.Nithyavendhan
O R D E R
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to return the school fees retained by the 5th respondent, in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018.
2/8
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his daughters were admitted in the 5threspondent's school for the academic year 2018- 2019 to the 'Playgroup' grade. After completing Pre-K.G. grade, his daughters continued their education for the academic year 2020-2021. It is further the submission of the petitioner that fees had to be paid for two academic years, and that if the fees are paid upfront at the end of the third year, a sum of Rs.55,000/- would be refunded. Based on such arrangement, the petitioner deposited Rs.2,00,000/- per child for the academic years 2022- 2023 to 2024-2025, and besides, a sum of Rs.66,000/- was paid as tuition fee. Since the petitioner was transferred out of Tamil Nadu, he wanted to discontinue the study of his daughters at the end of the academic year 2022- 2023 and requested a refund of the fees for the remaining academic years 2023-2024 (Grade-2) and 2024-2025 (Grade-3). However, the 6th respondent did not return the fees and submitted that the petitioner is eligible only for a sum of Rs.95,000/- for each children. Though the petitioner agreed to receive the said amount without prejudice to his right, the 6threspondent did not settle the same. Hence, he prayed for a mandamus to return the school fees held by the 5threspondent in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018.
3/8
3. This contention was stoutly objected to by the respondents on the prime defence that the writ petition is not maintainable against a private educational institution, and furthermore, it is their contention that the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018, is not applicable to the 6th respondent school, and besides, they contend that the prayer is defective.
4. Apart from the above legal defence, it is the specific contention of the 6threspondent that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the 6threspondent in respect of return of fees, and the issue involved in the present case requires letting in oral and documentary evidence and consideration of the disputed fact. Therefore, prays to dismiss this writ petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration on either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.
6. While looking at the email correspondences annexed along with the typed set of papers, it is apparent that there are disputed facts among the parties. According to the petitioner, the 6threspondent is liable to return the
4/8
balance fees, whereas the 6threspondent would say that there is an agreement between the petitioner and the 6threspondent and, according to the scheme to which the petitioner agreed, only on the completion of third year of the academic session, the petitioner will be entitled to a certain refund. Therefore, while harmoniously going through the email communications between the petitioner and the 6threspondent, this Court is of the firm view that unless the parties put forth their evidence and documents before Civil Court, it is impractical to deal such dispute facts in a writ petition.
7. Apart from that, when unaided private educational institutions render a service having a public law element, they may be construed as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. But, in order to maintain a writ petition against such a private entity, the issue raised must have a nexus with a public duty of the private entity. In the present case, the issue raised is regarding the refund of fees, which is purely based on the contract between the petitioner and the 6threspondent, in which no public law element is involved.
8. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society and Others vs.
5/8
Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, (2023) 4 SCC 498. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unitech Limited and Others vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 35, to contend that the writ petition against contract is maintainable, the factual aspect of the Unitech Limited case is altogether different, from the factual aspect of the case on hand. In the above-reported judgment, the writ has filed against an instrumentality of the State, but in the present case, admittedly, the 6th respondent is a private entity. Therefore, the above citation is not applicable to the facts of this case.
9. It is further contended that, since schools are regulated under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018, the writ petition is maintainable. However, it is well settled law that merely because the Government has a certain regulatory mechanism against a private entity, which by itself is not sufficient to make the issue become amenable to writ jurisdiction. As already discussed, this is a case of refund of school fees which is based upon the contract between the parties. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable.
6/8
10. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum in accordance with law for refund of fees.
29.08.2025
cda Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order To
1.The Principal Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Chennai. 2.The Director,
Department of School Education, Chennai.
3.The Regional Director,
The Cambridge Assessment International Education, New Delhi.
4.The Director,
The Cambridge Assessment International Education, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
5.The Directors,
12 Global Virtual Learning Private Limited, Krishnakumar and Nisha Nancy Delquin, No.20 & 21, Balavinayakar Avenue, Thoraipakkam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu.
7/8
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
cda 5.Fathima, Head of School,
12 Global School, No.3 and 4B, 3rdPanchayat Link Road, Near Doshi Etopia,
Perungudi, Chennai.
W.P.No.23523 of 2023
29.08.2025
8/8
Alert