Disposed

Miss Diya Madan through Father Paras Madan and Ors. v. Maxfort School Pitampura and Anr.

Delhi HC3 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/12996/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court clarified that pendency of a stay order on school takeover does not bar the Directorate of Education from examining complaints on fee determination and arrears. The Directorate is directed to pass a speaking order within four weeks regarding such fees.

What did the court decide?

The Directorate of Education is directed to consider complaints regarding fee determination and arrears and pass a detailed and speaking order within four weeks.

Miss Diya Madan through Father Paras Madan and Ors… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 3^rd December, 2018

¶4

- W.P.(C) 12996/2018 & CM APPL. 50424/2018 ( exemption ) MISS DIYA MADAN THROUGH FATHER PARAS MADAN AND ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Khagesh B.Jha, Adv. with Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

MAXFORT SCHOOL PITAMPURA AND ANR . Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC with Mr.Yogesh Kumar, DEO, Zone XI

¶7

- W.P.(C) 13007/2018 & CM APPL.50459/2018 ( exemption ) MASTER KUSHAGRA GUPTA, THROUGH FATHER ANKUSH GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Khagesh B.Jha, Adv. with Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Advs.

¶8

versus

¶9

MAXFORT SCHOOL ROHINI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC with Mr.Yogesh Kumar, DEO, Zone XI

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

¶12

O R D E R (ORAL) % 03.12.2018

¶13

1. Mr. Jha, appearing for the petitioners, draws my attention to the order, dated 18^th July, 2018, passed by the Deputy Director of

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

W.P.(C) 12996/2018 & W.P.(C) 13007/2018

¶16

Education, dealing with complaints filed by parents of the Respondent No.1-school (hereinafter referred to as “the School”).

¶17

2. He points out that the said order notes that the allegations made in the complaint had been earlier examined by the Directorate of Education and various orders have been passed by the competent authority, culminating in orders for taking over of the School being issued by the administrator, but that the said orders were stayed by this Court, before whom the matter was sub judice.

¶18

3. Mr. Jha points out that this aspect was clarified by this Court as far back as on 31^st August, 2017 in CM Nos.31755/2017 and 31756/2017 in WP(C) 6784/2016 ( Maxfort School Rohini v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi ).

¶19

4. In the said order this Court noticed as under:

¶20

“ It is seen that by the order dated 03.08.2016, this Court had directed that no coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the Directorate of Education. The learned counsel for the applicant states that in view of the said order, the Directorate of Education is not taking any further steps with regard to their complaints.

¶21

In this regard, it is clarified that the order dated 03.08.2016, passed by this Court, restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner was confined in its operation to the subject matter of the present petition; that is, the taking over of the management of the petitioner school. To that extent, the respondents were interdicted from taking any coercive steps. The said order does not come in the way of the respondents from passing and implementing any other orders in accordance with law and also does not absolve the petitioner from the obligation complying with the same.”

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

W.P.(C) 12996/2018 & W.P.(C) 13007/2018

¶24

5. In view thereof, it is clear that the pendency of the said writ petition, before this Court, is not an impediment to the Directorate of Education examining the complaints of the parents of the students, who are the petitioners in the present case.

¶25

6. Learned counsel for the School has no objection to this arrangement.

¶26

7. The Directorate of Education is, accordingly, directed to consider the said complaints, to the extent they deal with fee determination and arrears of fees, and pass a detailed and speaking order thereon within four weeks from today.

¶27

8. These writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. All other issues in these writ petitions shall remain open.

¶28

9. Needless to say, should the petitioners be aggrieved thereby, there remedies, in law, would remain reserved.

¶29

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

¶30

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

¶31

DECEMBER 3, 2018 dsn

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

W.P.(C) 12996/2018 & W.P.(C) 13007/2018

Miss Diya Madan through Father Paras Madan and Ors. v. Maxfort School Pitampura and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Diya Madan through Father Paras Madan and Ors. v. Maxfort School Pitampura and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minor X (through Guardian Raj Kumar) Vs State (Nct) of Delhi and Ors.

Management Committee Masjid Jangalwali & Ors. Vs Delhi Wakf Board & Ors.

Kuldeep Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jagdis Saran Vs Union of India & Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Beena Devi and Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Kishore and Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Palni and Ors.

The Director General Cpwd Vs Devi

Rajesh Aggarwal & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Anil Sethi Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Col (Retd) K.S. Gahlawat Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Sachin Tanwar Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Shankey Choudhary Baliyan Vs the Director Office of Ctet/Jnvst/Me Central Board of Secondary Education (Ctet)

Riya Intetrnational College Vs Rehabilitaion Council of India