Delhi High Court
Master Eklavya Kochhar & Ors. vs Bal Bharati Public School & Ors. on 3 October, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 988/2024 & C.M.Nos.58144-58146/2024
MASTER EKLAVYA KOCHHAR & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr.Nitin Bhardwaj with
Mr.M.P.Bhargava and Dr.Anurag
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
BAL BHARATI PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Kamal Gupta with Mr.Sparsh
Aggarwal and Ms.Yosha Dutt,
Advocates for School.
Mr.Karn Bhardwaj, ASC for GNCTD
with Mr.Shubham Singh, Mr.Rajat
Gaba and Mr.Saurabh Dahiya,
Advocates for DOE.
% Date of Decision: 03rd October, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 24th July,
2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 6112/2020 whereby learned
Single Judge dismissed the application being C.M.No.41586/2024 filed by
the Appellants herein to restrain Respondent no.1/school from charging fees
as per the rejected fee structure proposal for academic year 2019-2020.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants states that Respondent
no.3/Directorate of Education ("DoE") issued general directions on 18th
April, 2020 directing schools not to hike school fees and charge fees on a
monthly basis. He states that in violation of the aforementioned directions,
which have not been stayed by any Court, Respondent no.1 demanded
school fees on a quarterly basis in advance.
3. He states that the Appellants filed an application seeking directions to
the Respondent no.1/school to charge school fees as per last approved fees
(2015-2016) by the DoE.
4. He states that Respondent no.1/school has been continuously charging
hiked fees for session 2019-2020 even though the fee structure proposal for
session 2019-2020 was rejected vide order dated 24th September, 2021
passed by the DoE. He states that the order dated 24th September, 2021
passed by the DoE was challenged by Respondent no.1/school in W.P. (C)
12266/2021, however, no stay has been granted by this Court against the
DoE order dated 24th September, 2021.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent no.1/school states that
in W.P.(C) No.12266/2021, a learned Single Judge of this Court has
restrained the DoE from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner(s) in
pursuance to the order dated 24th September, 2021 passed by the DoE. He
also refutes all the contentions and submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the Appellants.
6. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the present case
is a part of batch of 150 matters, which is being heard by the learned Single
Judge. The relief being sought by the Appellants in the subject petition with
respect to Respondent no.1/school's act of charging fees as per rejected fee
structure proposal for academic session 2019-2020 relates to the larger issue
of powers of DoE to regulate fees structure of private unaided schools.
7. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 10th May, 2021 passed in
the subject petition, the learned Single Judge has clarified that all payments
made by the Appellants/Petitioners and accepted by the Respondent
no.1/school are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties
in the underlying writ petition, and subject to such adjustment as the Court
may direct.
8. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal along with the
applications is dismissed. It is clarified that the rights and contentions of all
the parties before the learned Single Judge are left open.
CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
OCTOBER 3, 2024
KA
