Progressive Convent School and Junior College Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha vs The State Of Maharahstra & Ors.

(Per Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.) :

Subject matter: Petitioner, a School Management demonstrates laxity and inaction on the part of respondent authorities, particularly the Respondent No.6 in implementing the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 [for short “the Act of 2009”]. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite the Petitioner school has admitted proportionate quota of students under the provisions of the Act of 2009 and has imparted education to those accordingly, the Respondent No.6 has neither released the reimbursement of fees and expenses to the School under Section 12(2) of the 2009 Act nor has given any response to the proposals/claims iled by the Petitioner.

Considering the grievance, we have heard this matter inally by consent of the parties.

Heard Ms. Laxmi Thakur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who appears through video conferencing mode. She submits that Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 2009 mandates the schools dispensing pre-primary education to reserve 25% of its capacity in Classes I to VIII for poor neighborhood children aged between 6 to 14 years.

Ms. Thakur would further submit that the Petitioner school is identiied as unaided and self-inanced school, run by a society having been established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, for the purpose of establishing educational institutions.

Ms. Laxmi Thakur, learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner–school is providing free education to the 25% quota of students hailing from inancially and economically weaker section and disadvantaged group, who are admitted under the provisions of the Act of 2009. That the Petitioner school has imparted education to such 25% students under the Act of 2009 and, accordingly has claimed from the Respondents “reimbursement” of expenses as provided under the Act of 2009, together with the approved fee structure of school.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that under Section 12(2) read with 12(2) of the Act of 2009, the Respondent authorities are under mandate to reimburse the fees of concerned students every year. That, the Petitioner-school followed the procedure as set out in the Rules and Circulars issued by the Government from time to time, by putting up notices in the school and distributing forms for admission, drawing lots for selection of students. It is only after completing the due process, the Petitioner-school has granted admission to such students. The Petitioner even submitted the entire information in the prescribed format to the Respondent No.6 together with all the requisite documents, certiicates, acknowledgments, etc., Such information was also submitted to the Block Education Oicer, Panchayat Samittee, regarding all students admitted in the Petitioner-school. However, there is neither reimbursement nor any response from the respondent side. That, the Petitioner has kept on reminding the respondent authorities of its claim.

It is further submitted that despite having lodged various requests and reminders to the Respondent authorities, the expenses incurred by Petitioner-school towards the education of students admitted under the provisions of the Act of 2009, were not released / reimbursed by the Respondent authorities to the Petitioner school.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009 mandates the Respondent authorities to compensate the schools like Petitioner school, the cost for providing the free of cost education to such children, reimbursing them the tuition fees equivalent to per student cost at par with the government primary schools or the actual fees of the private schools.

Ms. Laxmi Thakur was at pains to submit that since the academic year 2019-2020 to 2024-2025, an amount of Rs.69,22,777/- is awaited to be disbursed by the Respondent authorities to the Petitioner-school. Ms. Laxmi Thakur would further submit that there is no deiciency on the part of Petitioner-school to comply with any formality required to receive the reimbursement of expenses. She would further submit that rather due to inaction on the part of Respondent Authorities in reimbursing expenses to the Petitioner-school, the very object of the Act of 2009 itself is frustrated. That, the Petitioner is being impaired to provide education to all the students even including the students admitted under the provisions of Act of 2009, due to non disbursement of expenses by the Respondent authorities. Ms. Thakur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would rely on series of representations iled by the Petitioner with the Respondent Authorities seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Petitioner as stated supra. She would rely on various orders passed by this Court wherein in similar circumstances, this Court has directed the Respondent Authorities therein to consider the cases and proposals / requisitions to reimburse the expenses under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009. She places reliance on the following orders passed by this Court :

[A] Order dated 10^th January 2024 in Writ Petition No. 276 of 2024 passed by this Court at Principal Seat – Mumbai.

[B] Order dated 24^th October 2024 in Writ Petition No. 11956 of 2024 passed by this Court at Aurangabad Bench.

[C] Order dated 21^st September 2023 in Writ Petition No. 7672 of 2022 and connected matters passed by this Court at Principal Seat – Mumbai, and

[D] Order dated 24^th September 2025 in Writ Petition 8923 of 2025 and connected matters passed by this Court.

We have gone through the orders cited by the Petitioner to support her case. Indeed, those orders contain directions to the respondent authorities therein to consider the cases of respective petitioners for reimbursement of expenses under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009, wherever appropriate case has been made out by the concerned petitioners.

Ms. T. J. Kapre, learned AGP could not dispute the entitlement of a deserving school to receive the reimbursement of expenses under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009. However, she would submit that proposal iled by the Petitioner needs to be adjudicated by examining the entitlement of Petitioner.

As such its evident that despite the claims/proposals having submitted by the Petitioner-institution for the beneit of Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009, those are neither cleared nor the Petitioner has been responded as to the result on those claims/proposals.

In view of the above, we are of the view that if the respondent authorities merely sit over the claims, the very purpose of the Act of 2009 would indeed stand frustrated. The respondent authorities must bear in mind that provisions of the Act of 2009 are not meant to be proitable to the educational institute, but those are realistically meant to encourage the deserving educational institutions to run the school by accommodating inancially weaker section students to impart free and compulsory education.

Prime object of the enactment is to bring the kids of such inancially weaker section of society in the low of regular education process by implementing free and compulsory education policy. The predominant object of entitling private unaided schools to run their schools by accommodating poor and inancially weaker section @ 25% of the student strength, and granting them reimbursement of the expenses per such student is obviously with a view to achieve the goal of education to all.

The object of the enactment is seen from the Section 3 of the Act of 2009, which is reproduced as follows for the sake of convenience: -

Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009 deals with the reimbursement of expenses to the deserving educational institutions. For the sake of convenience, Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009 is reproduced as below:-

We are cautious of the fact that merely admitting certain percent students ipso facto does not entitle the Schools to receive the reimbursement from Respondent authorities. The Authorities are certainly supposed to examine legitimacy of each reimbursement proposal in the light of government policies and the statutory requirements as are prescribed in the Act of 2009.

However, the approach of the concerned respondent authorities of merely sitting tight over such proposals is certainly disapproved by us. If the the Respondent No 6 or any respondent authorities noticed any deiciency in the proposals, it was for such authority(ies) to call upon the Petitioner to inquire into, or to clear of the deiciency, as the case may be. But this exercise does not seem to have been done by present the Respondent No.6; and as also by such authorities in a number of cases as could be seen from the cited orders, which is a worrying factor.

We feel that the Act of 2009 is obviously a piece of ‘Social Beneicial Legislation’. Unless the implementing authorities give true efect to the provisions therein by operating those, such a benevolent legislation and object of the Parliament would not reach to its logical end. This tempts us to issue certain directions to Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to see positive and efective implementation of the Act of 2009.

In the light of above, we feel that the writ petition can be disposed of appropriately by giving following directions :

[1] The Respondent Authorities, particularly the Respondent No.6 shall decide the proposals / claim proposals iled by the Petitioner to reimburse the grant / expenses under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009 which are iled by the Petitioner for the period 2019-2020 to 2024-2025.

[2] If needed, the Petitioner can ile a comprehensive set of such representations / proposals with Respondent No.6.

[3] Respondent No.6 shall decide the proposals iled by the Petitioner, on its own merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

[4] In the meantime, if the Respondent No.6 reasonably inds any deiciency, such deiciency would be brought to the notice of Petitioner immediately which, the Petitioner would satisfy accordingly.

[5] In exercise of our power under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, we feel it appropriate to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to look into the issue of pendency of the claims iled by educational institutions under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009 with the respective Education Oicers, and to frame appropriate mechanism for reimbursements under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009 expeditiously to make the Act of 2009 meaningful. The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 would regularly take yearly review of the claims received by the concerned Education Oicers and its disposals. We request the Ld. Assistant Government Pleader to speciically bring these directions to the notice of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 as also to all such concerned authorities.

[6] We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the entitlement of Petitioner-school to receive the reimbursement nor we have made any observations as to the amount of reimbursement, if any, receivable by the Petitioner.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.