Dismissed

Simla-Chandigarh Educational Society and Anr. v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Delhi HC16 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/1438/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi directed the respondents to consider fresh comprehensive representations from petitioners and pass a reasoned order within ten days, while exercising caution given the petitioner's fifteen-year operational history. The court disposed of the petition allowing the petitioners to approach permissible legal remedies if aggrieved by the subsequent order.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider fresh representation and pass reasoned order within ten days.

Simla-Chandigarh Educational Society and Anr. Vs… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1438/2018 & C.M. Nos.5928-5929/2018

¶3

SIMLA-CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ANR. ..... PETITIONERS Through Mr.Tarique Siddiqui, Adv. with Mr.Tanveer Ahmad, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION. ….RESPONDENT Through Mr.Amit Bansal, Adv. with Ms.Seema Dolo, Adv. for R- 1/CBSE.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 16.02.2018

¶10

Vide the present petition, petitioner no.1/Society as well as petitioner no.2/School, have impugned the orders dated 17^th October, 2017/13^th November, 2017, passed by the respondents, withdrawing the provisional affiliation granted to the petitioner/School for Secondary School Education and further directing petitioner no.2 not to admit any student from Class IX onwards from the academic session commencing from 1^st April, 2018.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the said order alleging six shortcomings on the part of the petitioner, has been passed without even examining the contentions

¶12

raised by the petitioners in their reply. He submits that as far as shortcomings nos.3 to 6 referred to in the impugned order are concerned, the petitioners had duly explained in their reply to the show cause notice that the said infirmities/shortcomings already stood removed. He further submits that in so far as shortcoming no.1 which pertains to use of non NCERT books in the School, he has instructions to undertake that from the next academic session only, the petitioner will prescribe only NCERT books for use in the School.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in so far as shortcoming no.2 is concerned, the action of the petitioners is in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Action Committee, Un-Aided Pvt. Schools & Ors. Vs. Director of Education & Ors. AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2693 . 4. Learned counsel submits that after passing of the impugned order, the petitioners have already made three representations to the respondents pointing out the aforesaid facts but they have received no reply thereto till date. He further submits that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners and pass a reasoned and speaking order within ten days.

¶14

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have submitted three different representations, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioners to submit a fresh comprehensive representation within three days. The respondents will, accordingly, decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within ten days thereafter.

¶15

It is hoped that the respondents will look into the matter

¶16

compassionately keeping in view the fact that the petitioner/School has been running for the last fifteen years as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶17

Needless to say, the order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

¶18

In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the said order of the respondents, he will be at liberty to take recourse as permissible under law.

¶19

The petition and pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.

¶20

REKHA PALLI, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 16, 2018/aa

Simla-Chandigarh Educational Society and Anr. v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simla-Chandigarh Educational Society and Anr. v. Central Board of Secondary Education

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

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs G S Thind

Shaleen Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs the Maintenance Tribunal & Ors.

Amod Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (Tpddl)

Vinod Kumar Shah Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors.

Public Information Officer Tihar Jail Vs Om Prakash Gandhi and Anr.

Ranjan Pandey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Investor Protection Group and Anr. Vs Security Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Natwar Lal Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Modern College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Ors.

Sarawati Devi College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.

Shri Satbir Singh Vs Land and Building Department

Mahendar Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through the Secretary and Anr.

Manif Alam Vs Indian Institute of Technology Delhi & Ors.

M/S Imperial Promoter Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.