Delhi High Court
Riddhima Singh (Minor) Through ... vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 4 June, 2021
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 4th June, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 6007/2019
RIDDHIMA SINGH (MINOR) THROUGH HER
FATHER SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh,
father of the petitioner.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocate for
R-1/CBSE.
Mr. Mukesh K. Verma,
Advocate for R-2.
Ms. Aishwarya Rao and Ms.
Renika Nim, Advocates for R3.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is a minor child. At the time the writ petition was
filed, she was studying in Class VII in the respondent no.3 -
Indirapuram Public School, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh ["the School"],
which is affiliated to respondent no.1/Central Board of Secondary
Education ["CBSE"]. The petition has been filed through the
petitioner's father, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, who has also
appeared throughout in person.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
2. The reliefs sought in the petition are as follows: -
"1. to issue an writ of mandamus to the respondent no 1
to allow Petitioner to appear in Secondary and senior
secondary Examinations conducted by respondent
without any level of discrimination in examination or
result with respect to regular students, failing which the
applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
2. to issue such further order/s to respondents as this
Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. On a reading of the petition, as filed, it appears that the
principal grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the new fee
structure as introduced by the School from the academic year 2017-18
onwards. The case made out in the petition is that on 02.04.2018, the
School denied permission to the petitioner to attend classes on account
of non-payment of fees which, according to the petitioner, was
charged arbitrarily, without consulting the parents of the students of
the School, and without giving any reasons for the same. Several other
allegations have also been levelled against the School.
4. On 27.05.2019, this Court issued notice in the petition while
recording a prima facie finding that the petition raised serious issues
of territorial jurisdiction, as the grievance of the petitioner was
essentially against the School, which is situated beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. It was further noted that the pleadings in the
petition did not relate to the reliefs sought.
5. Even while the issue of territorial jurisdiction remained
pending, the petitioner filed several interlocutory applications in these
proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
6. By an order dated 27.11.2019, the Court directed the School to
readmit the petitioner and to permit her to attend classes, subject to the
deposit of fees and annual charges demanded by the School with the
Registry of the Court. It was recorded in the order dated 23.12.2019
that, according to the School, an amount of ₹2,32,833 was due
towards fees for the academic sessions 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-
20, and that Mr. Singh had deposited an amount of ₹79,560/- as fee for
the academic session 2017-18, since the petitioner was home-schooled
since Class VII. As per the School, the petitioner had not attended any
classes or qualified in any examination for Class VII, due to which she
could not have been permitted to attend classes for Class VIII at that
stage. By the said order, the Court directed the School to conduct an
examination for the petitioner for Class VII, to which Mr. Singh
agreed.
7. By a further order dated 10.02.2020, this Court passed
directions to the petitioner and the School, with regard to the conduct
of the examination for the petitioner, to the following effect: -
"2. After having heard the father of the petitioner child,
who appears in person, as well as Ms. Aishwarya Rao,
who appears for respondent No.3 school, it is agreed by
both sides that the applications can be disposed of with
the following directions:
(i) The petitioner child will appear in Grade VII
examination, which commences from 17.2.2020.
(ii) In case the petitioner child passes Grade VII
examination, respondent No.3 school will hold Grade
VIII examination for the petitioner child on 7.4.2020.
(iii) In case the petitioner child clears Grade VIII
examination, she will be upgraded to Grade IX.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
3. Furthermore, the Registry is directed to release
Rs.79,560/- along with accrued interest to respondent
No.3 school, which was deposited by the petitioner's
father (i.e. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh) pursuant to the
order dated 27.11.2019."
8. On 30.09.2020, this Court recorded that the petitioner had
cleared the examination for Class VII that was conducted by the
School, and had been promoted to Class VIII. However, the petitioner
had not appeared in the Class VIII examinations, scheduled to be held
on 07.04.2020, as directed by the order dated 10.02.2020, in view of
the lockdown necessitated due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Recording
the consent of Mr. Singh that the petitioner would be willing to give
the Class VIII examinations physically, the Court passed the following
order:
"8. Keeping in view the wishes of the petitioner and the
order dated 10.02.2020, let respondent No.3 school hold
Class VIII exam within four weeks from today. In case of
any issue while conducting the exam, the petitioner child
will not claim any damage from respondent No.3 school.
In case, the petitioner child clears the exam in question,
she will be admitted in Class IX.
9. Respondent No.3 school is permitted to open the school
for conducting of such exam."
9. The aforesaid order was taken in appeal by way of LPA
297/2020, which was dismissed by a judgment dated 12.10.2020 (to
which I was a party). A contrary submission was advanced by Mr.
Singh before the Division Bench, to the effect that the petitioner was
not willing to appear in the Class VIII examinations to be convened by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
the School, as she apprehended that the time for preparation for the
same was insufficient.
10. By a subsequent order dated 26.11.2020, this Court modified
the order dated 10.02.2020 to the effect that the School was directed to
permit the petitioner to appear in the Class VIII regular examinations
scheduled to be conducted in February-March, 2021. The matter was
adjourned thereafter for hearing on the issue of territorial jurisdiction
of the Court to entertain the petition.
11. The petitioner has also made an application for amendment of
the writ petition, being CM APPL. 26540/2020, in which she relies
inter alia upon a grievance raised by her father before the Government
of NCT of Delhi ["GNCTD"]. The petitioner has also referred to
correspondence between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the CBSE, as
well as grievances regarding the list of books prescribed by the
School. The petitioner raised a further grievance with the CBSE with
regard to the alleged irregularities committed by the School, to which
the CBSE has responded, stating that its jurisdiction is confined to the
conduct of the examinations of Class X and Class XII, and the
implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 falls under the purview of the State/Union
Territory government.
12. By way of the amendment application, the petitioner has sought
to add several grounds, all relating to the alleged irregularities by the
School. The contention of the petitioner, although not easy to discern
from the meandering and vague averments in the pleadings, appears to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
be that the CBSE and the State of Uttar Pradesh have not taken action
against the School, despite these irregularities. The petitioner has
sought to add ten prayers to the singular substantive prayer in the
original writ petition, which are extracted below: -
"1. to issue direction to respondents to pay compensation
to petitioner, an amount of 10% of annual income of
respondent no3 school and Trust/Society running
respondent no3 school for the period of 30 Months due to
irrecoverable damage, or reasonable amount this
Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and irrecoverable damage in
last 30months to petitioner.
2. to give punishment to respondent no3 for making such
intentional crime as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping
view to prevent such cases in future.
3. to give direction to respondent No1 to ensure strict
compliance of having mandatory provision for school
management committee for its affiliated school, where
parents representative to be selected as per procedure
described by state in RTE rules in time bound manner.
4. to issue direction to respondents that in absence of
school management committee and its members details
on school website/public domain, respondent No1
affiliated schools will be prohibited to collect fee or issue
any new rules or direction of school.
5. to issue direction that all rules/regulations/actions in
school related to students, books, etc... will be valid only
when such rules/actions is supported with details of
minutes of meeting of school management committee
along with attendance of school management committee
members.
6. to issue direction to respondent No1 to pay
compensation to petitioner for not fulfilling its
duties/responsibilities which also stated by state in its
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
response, towards responsibility of state against
respondent no1 affiliated unaided private schools.
7. to issue direction to respondent no1 to address
irregularities reported against respondent no3/school
including fixation of fee and take action, as existing state
government fee regulation act is limited to scope of fee
hike norms only and not for fee fixation.
8. to issue direction to respondent No1 to adhere, accept,
and fulfill responsibility as mentioned by state response
towards responsibility of state against respondent no1
affiliated unaided private schools.
9. to issue direction to respondent No1 to audit
irregularities of respondent no3 school and also to check
if Trust/Society running this school is really fit to run
school.
10. to issue direction to respondent no2 to take action
against respondent no3/school, as city magistrate
investigation already given report that respondent no3
debarred petitioner from school."
13. In the amendment application, the petitioner has referred to
several circulars issued by the CBSE. She has also adverted to the
views of the GNCTD, and some correspondence between Mr. Singh
and the GNCTD. However, the material relating to the GNCTD is
entirely irrelevant to the disputes between the petitioner and the
School, as the School is located in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and not
within the jurisdiction of the GNCTD.
14. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, I have heard Mr. Singh,
on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Seema Dolo, learned counsel for the
CBSE, Mr. Mukesh Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.2/the
State of Uttar Pradesh, and Ms. Aishwarya Rao, learned counsel for
the School.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
15. Mr. Singh contended that the present petition is maintainable
and ought to be entertained by this Court, on account of the fact that
the relief sought is directed against the CBSE, the head office of
which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He
further argued that the CBSE is empowered to pass directions inter
alia regarding fee hike to affiliated schools like the respondent/School.
This, according to Mr. Singh, attracts the jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain the present petition.
16. Ms. Seema Dolo, learned counsel appearing for the CBSE, on
the other hand, submitted that although the reliefs in the present
petition have been sought against the CBSE, the averments in the
petition pertain to the School, including inter alia with regard to the
increase of fees. According to her, since the School is situated in
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and since the principal grievances of the
petitioner are against the School, this Court would not be the
appropriate forum to entertain the present petition. In any event, she
further contended that the CBSE has no role to play with regard to the
issues ventilated in the petition, inasmuch as the petitioner has not yet
been promoted to Class IX, without which the prayers concerning the
conduct of the Class X and XII examinations by the CBSE cannot be
considered. It was further submitted that the petitioner had failed to
show any material from the CBSE barring her from taking any exams,
so as to necessitate the reliefs sought in this petition.
17. Ms. Dolo also drew my attention to a letter dated 18.12.2017/
03.01.2018 issued by the CBSE, annexed to the writ petition as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
Annexure - 16, wherein it has clarified that it is an examination
conducting body, and that it does not possess any regulatory powers in
the matter of fee hike in schools. It was stated therein that the limited
role of the CBSE with regard to fees is to ensure that its affiliated
schools charge fees as per the regulations enacted by the respective
State Governments, and that the appropriate authority to decide the
issue would be the State of Uttar Pradesh.
18. Ms. Dolo further contended that, even if the petitioner seeks
reliefs against the CBSE, as per the Affiliation Bye-laws of the CBSE
dated 18.10.2018, there is no specific provision laying down the
jurisdiction of any Court to entertain writ petitions against the CBSE
or challenges to its bye-laws. She stated that the CBSE has regional
offices for schools in each jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction of this
Court is not attracted on any ground.
19. Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Uttar Pradesh, submitted that no relief has been sought against the
State in the present petition, and that even if the amendment
application of the petitioner is allowed, the amended prayers sought to
be added would also pertain to the School, and not to the State of Uttar
Pradesh. It was further submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Self Financed
Independent Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018 was enacted by the
State, under which action is being taken by the District Fee Regulatory
Committee on complaints against Schools in its jurisdiction regarding
irregular fee fixation.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
20. On behalf of the School, Ms. Aishwarya Rao, learned counsel,
submitted that not only are the reliefs claimed in the petition of a
generic nature, but also that the petitioner has not sought any specific
relief as against the School. It was contended that, in any event, if the
petitioner was aggrieved by the actions of the School, this Court ought
not to entertain the petition, since the School is situated beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. She further submitted that a
perusal of the petition as well as the orders passed by this Court make
it apparent that the core issue in the petition, as opposed to the prayers
made, relates to the increase of fees by the School which, according to
her, was in consonance with the laws enacted by the State of Uttar
Pradesh in this regard.
21. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out
that Mr. Singh has already, prior to filing the present petition, filed a
petition on the issue of fee increase by the School, before the
Allahabad High Court, alongwith parents of other students of the
School, being Writ - C No. 46207/2017 [Shailendra Kumar Singh &
Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]. According to them, that
petition was last listed on 15.03.2018, when issues were framed for
consideration by the Allahabad High Court. They submitted that the
present petition may be dismissed on this count alone, as Mr. Singh
has filed the present petition in addition to a similar petition pending
before a Court of appropriate jurisdiction, and that the respondents
impleaded in the present petition have also been impleaded in that
petition. It was contended that when the Allahabad High Court is in
seisin of similar issues as raised in the present petition, this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
ought not to entertain the same, and the petitioner's grievances ought
to be agitated through her father's pending petition in the Allahabad
High Court.
22. Mr. Singh accepted that the aforesaid writ petition remains
pending before the Allahabad High Court, but disputed the fact that
the petition is on the same issue as raised in the present petition. He
contended that the present petition is directed against the CBSE,
whereas the petition before the Allahabad High Court is directed
against schools and officials of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
23. Ms. Dolo placed a copy of Writ - C No. 46207/2017, filed by
Mr. Singh before the Allahabad High Court, before the Court, the
prayers in which read as follows: -
"i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party
no. 6, 7 and 8 not to hike any fee for the academic year
2017-18 on the wards studying in their schools.
ii) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondents 1 and 4 to constitute a Committee headed by
a Retired High Court Judge to carry out an audit of the
Books of Account of Respondents-Schools as an audit of
the Books of Account of the Respondent no.5 and 6
inasmuch as they relate to the Respondent-Schools in
order to check into acts of profiteering and
commercialization;
iii) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the
Respondent no. 4 to constitute a Committee headed by a
Retired High Court Judge to conduct an inspection into
the Respondent-Schools as well as the Respondent no.5
and 6 in relation to Respondent -School to check if the
fees payable commensurate the facilities provided by the
Respondent-School;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
iv) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the
Respondent no. 2 and 4 to form a Committee to look into
the reasonableness of the fee and the increase for the
academic year 2017-18 in respect of Respondent-School;
v) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the
Respondent no. 1 State to expedite the enactment of a
Statute regulating fees in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
vi) To issue such further and other orders as the
circumstances of the case may require and the Hon'ble
Court may deem fit.
vii) To award costs of this petition to the petitioners."
24. The only ground upon which the petitioner seeks to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court is the location of the head office of the
CBSE. However, although the petitioner has impleaded the CBSE as a
respondent in the present petition, and formulated the prayers in a
manner that they appear to be directed against the CBSE, it is clear
from the facts pleaded that the matter principally concerns the
petitioner's grievances against the School.
25. The original prayer in the writ petition concerns the petitioner's
right to take the CBSE examinations at the end of Class X and Class
XII. However, the petitioner has just finished Class VIII. The CBSE's
position is that the question of permission to appear in the Class X or
Class XII examinations does not arise until a candidate has at least
cleared Class IX. Mr. Singh has been unable to demonstrate that the
CBSE has stopped the petitioner in any way, at this stage, from taking
the Class X and Class XII examinations, as and when she is eligible
for the same. The present petition therefore contains no basis for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
original prayer sought against the CBSE, with regard to permission to
appear in the Class X or Class XII examinations.
26. During the pendency of the petition also, the petitioner has
moved the Court for several interlocutory reliefs. A perusal of the
orders passed shows that the disputes raised by the petitioner
principally concerned payment of fees to the School, and the holding
of Class VII and Class VIII examinations by the School for the
petitioner. These are not matters with which the CBSE is concerned.
27. Turning now to the prayers which the petitioner proposes to add
by way of her pending amendment application, once again, the
petitioner's substantive grievances are against the School. Her claims
against the CBSE and the State of Uttar Pradesh arise out of
allegations of ineffective oversight and dereliction of duty. The
adjudication of those allegations is also dependent upon an
examination of the petitioner's allegations against the School.
28. Seen in this perspective, the present case falls within the
category of cases where the Court may decline to entertain its
discretionary writ jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens.
29. The principle of forum non conveniens, in its applicability to
writ proceedings, was recognized by the Supreme Court in its
judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.,
(2004) 6 SCC 254: -
"30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a
small part of cause of action arises within the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may
not be considered to be a determinative factor
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
compelling the High Court to decide the matter on
merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the
doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga
v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR
(1941) 1 Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945)
49 CWN 357 : AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997
CWN 122] , S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1
CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR
1994 Del 126] .]"
(Emphasis supplied.)
30. The judgment in Kusum Ingots and several other authorities
were considered by a five-Judge bench of this Court in M/s Sterling
Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 181 DLT 658
(LB): AIR 2011 Del 174. The Court was called upon to consider the
correctness of the view taken by a Full Bench in New India Assurance
Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2010 Del 43 (FB),
which held that this Court was dutybound to entertain a challenge to
an order of a tribunal situated within its territorial jurisdiction. The
Bench in Sterling overruled the view of the Full Bench with the
following observations: -
"31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally
means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see
the convenience of all the parties before it. The
convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the
existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved,
the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts
which are necessitous for just adjudication of the
controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The
balance of convenience is also to be taken note of. Be it
noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra)1
and Ambica Industries (supra)2 about the applicability of
the doctrine of forum conveniens while opining that
arising of a part of cause of action would entitle the High
Court to entertain the writ petition as maintainable.
32. The principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and
sweep encapsulates the concept that a cause of action
arising within the jurisdiction of the Court would not
itself constitute to be the determining factor compelling
the Court to entertain the matter. While exercising
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Court cannot be totally
oblivious of the concept of forum conveniens. The Full
Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has not
kept in view the concept of forum conveniens and has
expressed the view that if the appellate authority who has
passed the order is situated in Delhi, then the Delhi High
Court should be treated as the forum conveniens. We are
unable to subscribe to the said view.
33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to
modify, the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in
New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) and
proceed to state our conclusions in seriatim as follows:
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole
cause of action emerges at the place or location where
the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is
situate and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court)
cannot decline to entertain the writ petition as that would
amount to failure of the duty of the Court cannot be
accepted inasmuch as such a finding is totally based on
the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional
authority totally ignoring the concept of forum
conveniens.
(b) Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises
within the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would
Mosaraf Hossain Khan vs. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 658
Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
be maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of
action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in
the case of Alchemist Ltd.3 (supra).
(c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part
of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable
in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate
authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the
singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the
matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of
forum conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional
authority is located constitutes the place of forum
conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench
is not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend
upon the lis in question.
(e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise
jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is
invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted/constricted
as the exercise of power under Article 226 being
discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the
ground of malafide alone.
(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of
forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are
required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending
upon the factual matrix of each case in view of what has
been stated in Ambica Industries (supra) and Adani
Exports Ltd. (supra)4.
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full
Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra)
"that since the original order merges into the appellate
order, the place where the appellate authority is located
is also forum conveniens" is not correct.
Alchemist Ltd. & Anr. vs. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors.. (2007) 11 SCC 335
Union of India & Ors. vs. Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr., (2002) 1 SCC 567
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
(h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions
enumerated hereinabove stands overruled."
(Emphasis supplied.)
31. Having regard to the principles distilled in the judgment in
Sterling, I am of the view that the mere presence of the CBSE as a
respondent in the petition is not sufficient to enable this Court to
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court
may decline to entertain a writ petition, if it comes to the conclusion
that it is not the most appropriate Court for the purpose. In arriving at
such a conclusion, the Court will consider inter alia the existence of a
more appropriate forum where a petitioner could effectively agitate
her grievances.
32. In the present case, the petitioner is resident in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, where the School is also located. The School is also
recognized by the State of Uttar Pradesh. As stated above, the
foundation of the grievances ventilated in the petition is based upon
allegations against the School. Further, the petitioner's contentions
regarding improper or inadequate oversight by the respondent
authorities implicate not just the CBSE, but even more importantly,
the State of Uttar Pradesh. The issues which the petitioner has raised
in this Court can very well be raised before the jurisdictional High
Court, which is entertaining allied grievances in the writ petition filed
by Mr. Singh in his own name, alongwith other parents. Such a course
will not prejudice the adjudication of the petitioner's disputes, as the
CBSE is a central body, and can defend proceedings anywhere in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
country. Indeed, the CBSE has been made a respondent to the petition
filed by Mr. Singh and others before the Allahabad High Court.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that this Court is not
the appropriate Court to agitate the grievances ventilated in the present
petition. The petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioner will,
however, be at liberty to agitate her grievances before the appropriate
Court, if she is so advised.
34. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
JUNE 04, 2021
HJ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:04.06.2021
