Dismissed

Mohd Shawab Minor through Natural Guardian Mohd Bilal v. Dr. Priti Saxena & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Dec 2024CONT.CAS(C)/1541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of contempt proceedings against a school for delay in granting provisional admission to a minor. Accepting the principal's unconditional apology and undertaking of future compliance, the contemnor was discharged with a strong warning.

What did the court decide?

Contemnor discharged with a strong warning; ordered to abide by court orders.

Mohd Shawab Minor through Natural Guardian Mohd Bilal… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1541/2024

¶4

MOHD SHAWAB MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOHD BILAL

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr.Hemant Baisla, Ms. Shikha, Ms.Pratima Saini, Ilin Saraswat and Mr. Hemant Kumar Niranjan, Advs. versus

¶6

DR. PRITI SAXENA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. R. M. Sinha, Mr.Prateek Mohan Sinha, Ms.Namita Sinha and Ms.Nandini Harsh, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Abhinav Singh and Mr. Praveen Kumar Kaushik, Advs. for R-2.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶8

O R D E R % 10.12.2024

¶9

The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10271/2024 has approached this Court praying for a direction in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent-School, i.e. Aadharshila Vidya Peeth, to provide admission to the petitioner under the Economically Weaker Section [E.W.S] category under Section 12 of the Right to Education Act.

¶10

On 26.07.2024, when W.P.(C) 10271/2024 was taken up, the Court noted that the petitioner is a six year old boy belonging to the O.B.C [Non

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 11:34:06

¶12

Creamy Layer] category, who has been allotted admission in the respondentSchool consequent to a computerized draw of lots held by the Directorate of Education[DoE] and was shortlisted for admission to Class I in the respondent-School.

¶13

The case of the petitioner was that the respondent-School has forced the parents of the petitioner to move from pillar to post for seeking admission. Considering the facts therein, vide order dated 26.07.2024, the Court directed the respondent-School to provide provisional admission to the petitioner in Class I in accordance with the shortlisting exercise conducted by the DoE and that the petitioner shall receive all entitlements in accordance with the provisions of the RTE Act.

¶14

Whereas, through CM APPL.43346/2024, the application for recall of the order dated 26.07.2024 has been filed by the respondent-School, this Court, vide order dated 07.08.2024, has held that during the pendency of the application for recall, the order dated 26.07.2024, which has granted provisional admission to the petitioner, has to be duly complied with and the child cannot be left in lurch till the issues between the DoE and the respondent-School are decided.

¶15

However, it is seen that the provisional admission to the petitioner has not been granted despite the directions passed by the Court, and vide order dated 19.11.2024, the Court directed for the personal appearance of the principal for hearing on framing of charges for contempt.

¶16

Pursuant to directions passed by this Court on 19.11.2024, Dr. Priti Saxena, principal, appears in person along with Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate. 7. Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-School, at the outset, submits that there was some delay in compliance with the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 11:34:06

¶19

orders passed by this Court. However, the same was bona fide and there was no deliberate intent to disobey the directions passed by this Court. According to him, after passing of the order dated 26.07.2024, an application for vacation thereto was filed on 30.07.2024 and thereafter, on dismissal of the said application, an LPA was preferred on 31.08.2024.

¶20

He then contends that on 13.09.2024, when the LPA was disposed of, granting liberty to raise all contentions before the single judge, the provisional admission to the petitioner was granted on 28.09.2024, whereas, the contempt petition was filed on 25.09.2024. He submits that firstly, steps for the vacation of interim order were taken and thereafter the LPA was preferred. Therefore, the school was under bona fide belief that the order passed by this Court may not be required to be complied with. 9. The aforesaid submission made by Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate is unacceptable. Once there were directions passed by this Court to grant the provisional admission to the petitioners, the respondent-School should have complied with the same albeit under protest. In matters pertaining to academic disputes, each passing day is extremely valuable. Delay in admission has a significant impact on both the academic prospects and performance of the student as well as irreparable harm to the mental state of both parents and students.

¶21

In the absence of there being any stay on the directions, noncompliance with the directions passed by the Court, on the ground that other remedies are being pursued, as stated by the respondent-School, holds the potential to frustrate the directions itself. The Court, therefore, was of the prima facie opinion to proceed with the framing of charges against the respondent-School.

¶22

¶23

At this stage, Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate placed on record an affidavit of the principal, wherein, an unconditional apology has been tendered. The said affidavit is reproduced as under:-

¶24

“1. That I am working as Head of the School/Principal of Aadharshila Vidya Peeth, CD Block, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.1 am one of the members of the Managing Committee of the said School

¶25

2. The said school has given provisional admission to the, petitioner Mohd. Shawab in Class-1 on 28.09.2024 pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court.

¶26

3. I admit that there is some delay in provisionally admitting the petitioner because of the challenge of the order of the learned Single Judge before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.

¶27

4. The delay in provisionally admitting the petitioner is neither intentional nor malafide. I, however, tender unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court for the slight delay in provisionally admitting the petitioner in the said school.

¶28

5. I assure this Hon'ble Court on behalf of the school that the School shall always abide by the orders of this Hon'ble Court. I on behalf of the school still feel sorry for the inconvenience caused to this Hon’ble Court.”

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, at this stage, the Court accepts the unconditional apology tendered by the principal and discharges the contemnor from the present proceedings with a strong warning to remain careful in the future in the matter of compliance of the directions of the Court. The contemnor shall be bound by the undertaking as mentioned in the affidavit. The Court notes that the respondent-School further undertakes to uphold the highest standard of diligence in compliance with the directions passed.

¶30

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶31

DECEMBER 10, 2024 Nc/sp

¶32

Mohd Shawab Minor through Natural Guardian Mohd Bilal v. Dr. Priti Saxena & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Shawab Minor through Natural Guardian Mohd Bilal v. Dr. Priti Saxena & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Andhra Pradesh Basketball Association & Ors. Vs Chander Mukhi Sharma & Anr.

Ishtiyak Hussain Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Om Prakash & Ors. Vs Rajiv Chaudhary General Manager , North Railway & Ors.

Abhimanyu Garg Vs Gaurang Shetty & Ors.

Neeraj Kumar Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors.

Neeti Vs Sh Arihant Khicha

Sarpal Singh Vs Amardeep Singh Bhatia & Ors.

Manavjit Singh Sandhu & Ors. Vs M/S Pratap University & Ors.

Nanda Agrawal Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Mata Shanti Devi Degree College Vs National Council for Teacher Education through Its Registrar Cum Member Secretary & Anr.

Bharat Dadwaria Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Delhi Development Authority Vs Smt. Savitri Devi

Mahender Singh Vs Sanjeev Mathur

Aarush Maurya Vs Directorate of Education and Anr.