Delhi High Court
Central Board Of Secondary Education vs Mount Columbus School And Ors on 16 July, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 568/2024 & C.M.Nos.38388-38389/2024
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
.....Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Sr.Advocate with
Ms.Manisha Singh and Mr.Nishank
Tripathi, Advocates.
versus
MOUNT COLUMBUS SCHOOL AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Kamal Gupta with Ms.Tripti
Gupta, Mr.Sparsh Aggarwal,
Mr.Karan Chaudhary and Ms.Yosha
Dutt, Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 16th July, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order
dated 10th April, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
WP(C) 2956/2020, whereby the order dated 16th March, 2020 passed by the
Appellant-CBSE was set aside.
2. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant states that the learned Single
Judge has erroneously relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in
Swadeshi Cotton Mills versus Union of India, (1981)1 SCC 664 and held
Signing Date:05.08.2024
14:46:20
that the order withdrawing provisional affiliation could not have been passed
by the Appellant without affording a personal hearing to the Respondent-
School. He states that no such hearing was sought by the Respondent itself
and the withdrawal order was passed only after issuance of a show cause
notice to the Respondent, who had also filed its reply to the same.
3. He submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding, in
particular, in paragraphs 54 and 66 that even though the Respondent had
never sought any personal hearing from the Appellant before passing of the
final order, the Appellant was obligated to grant the same. He further states
that no prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of
natural justice when such person itself does not dispute the case against it.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent-School, who appears
on advance notice, states that the defects and deficiencies pointed out to the
show cause notice as well as in the inspection report had been
cured/removed/rectified, to the maximum extent possible, prior to filing of
the underlying writ petition. He points out that the Respondent-School has
been functional during the pendency of proceedings as there was an interim
order in favour of the Respondent. He states that, as of now, approximately
1400 students are studying in the Respondent-School.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that the Court cannot insist that under all circumstances and in all cases
personal hearings have to be afforded to the persons concerned.
6. When principle of natural justice requires an opportunity to be heard
before an adverse order is passed, it does not in all circumstances mean a
personal hearing. The requirement is complied with by affording an
opportunity to the person concerned to present his case before such authority
Signing Date:05.08.2024
14:46:20
who is expected to apply its judicial mind to the issues involved.
7. The Supreme Court in Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors.,
(1997) 1 SCC 444 has held that natural justice is after all "no unruly horse,
no lurking land mine" as characteristically stated by Krishna Iyer, J. in
Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v.
Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, this Court is of the
view that the observation/finding of the learned Single Judge that the
compliance with the audi alteram partem requirement is non-negotiable and
any order which has civil consequence has to be preceded by an oral hearing
is not correct in the facts of the present case.
9. However, keeping in view the fact that the initial show cause notice
had been issued in the year 2017 and according to learned counsel for the
Respondent-School, all the defects and deficiencies pointed out by the
Appellant had been cured/rectified, this Court set asides the withdrawal of
the provisional affiliation order dated 16th March, 2020 with liberty to the
Appellant to re-inspect the Respondent-School premises after four weeks. If
the Appellant finds any defects/deficiencies, the same shall be
communicated to the Respondent-School, who in turn, shall endeavour to
remove the defects/deficiencies within a further period of one month.
Thereafter, the Appellant shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law. This Court clarifies that approach of both the
Appellant and the Respondent-School has to be to ensure conformity with
the rules and regulations rather than to close down the School. However, it
shall be open to the Appellant to take action of de-affiliation and closure of
the School, if there is no other option.
Signing Date:05.08.2024
14:46:20
10. With the aforesaid directions, present appeal along with the
applications stands disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JULY 16, 2024
KA
Signing Date:05.08.2024
14:46:20
