Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a school management and its trust, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur seeking a direction for reimbursement of fees/expenses under Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The school had admitted students under the Act and imparted education, but the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Satara, had not credited the reimbursement despite the petitioners submitting claims on 29 January 2022, 30 March 2024, and 28 October 2025, and consistently reminding the authority. The petitioners argued that the inaction frustrated the social beneficial scheme of the RTE Act. They relied on a recent judgment of the same court in Progressive Convent School & Junior College v. State & Ors., decided on 6 November 2025, where similar directions were issued. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the Education Officer had not decided the claims and that such inaction would defeat the purpose of the Act. The court directed the Education Officer to decide the petitioners' claims within four weeks from the date of the order, in accordance with law, and disposed of the writ petition. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Right to Education - Reimbursement of Fees - Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - School management admitted students under the Act and sought reimbursement of expenses - Education Officer failed to decide the claims despite repeated reminders - Court held that the authority must decide the claims within a reasonable time, otherwise the purpose of the Act is frustrated - Directed the Education Officer to decide the claims within four weeks (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer is obligated to decide and disburse reimbursement claims under Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and whether inaction amounts to frustration of the Act's purpose.
Final Decision
The court directed the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Satara, to decide the petitioners' claims for reimbursement under Section 12(2) of the RTE Act, 2009 within four weeks from the date of the order, in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of. No costs.
Law Points
- Reimbursement under Section 12(2) of RTE Act
- 2009
- Mandatory duty of Education Officer
- Social beneficial scheme
- Non-compliance frustrates purpose of Act
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 12239 of 2025
M. S. Karnik, Ajit B. Kadethankar
Mr. Ajit J. Kenjale (through V.C.) a/w Adv. Sai Rajendra Kadam for Petitioners, Adv. Vijay Killedar for Respondent No.1- UOI, Mr. R. P. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent -State, Adv. Pankaj Deokar for Respondent No.3
Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj Charitable Trust's English Medium School & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction for reimbursement of fees under Section 12(2) of the RTE Act, 2009.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a direction to the Education Officer to decide and disburse reimbursement claims for students admitted under the RTE Act.
Filing Reason
Education Officer failed to credit reimbursement despite submission of claims on 29 January 2022, 30 March 2024, and 28 October 2025 and repeated reminders.
Previous Decisions
Relied on Progressive Convent School & Junior College v. State & Ors., decided on 6 November 2025 by the same court.
Issues
Whether the Education Officer is obligated to decide reimbursement claims under Section 12(2) of the RTE Act, 2009 within a reasonable time.
Whether inaction by the authority frustrates the purpose of the RTE Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners submitted that they admitted students under the RTE Act and submitted claims for reimbursement, but the Education Officer did not credit the reimbursement despite reminders.
Petitioners argued that if the authority sits on claims, the purpose of the social beneficial scheme is frustrated.
Petitioners relied on the judgment in Progressive Convent School & Junior College v. State & Ors.
Ratio Decidendi
The Education Officer has a mandatory duty to decide reimbursement claims under Section 12(2) of the RTE Act, 2009 within a reasonable time; failure to do so frustrates the purpose of the Act. The court can direct the authority to decide such claims expeditiously.
Judgment Excerpts
The grievance of the Petitioners is that, even after admitting adequate number of students under the 2009 Act and having imparted education to them respectively, the Petitioners are still deprived of the reimbursement of fees/expenses against such students U/s 12(2) of the 2009 Act.
The Petitioners submit that if the Authority merely sits on the claims, the very purpose of the social beneficial scheme endorsed in the 2009 Act would stand frustrated.
We direct the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Satara to decide the claims of the Petitioners for reimbursement under Section 12(2) of the 2009 Act within a period of four weeks from today, in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 12239 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur on an unspecified date. The court heard the matter on 17 November 2025 and delivered an oral judgment on the same day.
Acts & Sections
- Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Section 12, Section 12(2)
