Dismissed

Master Eklavya Kochhar & Ors. v. Bal Bharati Public School & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Oct 2024LPA/988/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chief Justice, Manmohan (oral), dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge's order which refused to restrain a private school from charging fees based on a rejected fee structure proposal, noting the broader issue of state regulatory powers.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed along with accompanying applications; rights and contentions of parties left open.

Master Eklavya Kochhar & Ors. Vs Bal Bharati Public… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 988/2024 & C.M.Nos.58144-58146/2024

¶4

MASTER EKLAVYA KOCHHAR & ORS. .....Appellants

¶5

Through: Mr.Nitin Bhardwaj with Mr.M.P.Bhargava and Dr.Anurag Bhardwaj, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

BAL BHARATI PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Kamal Gupta with Mr.Sparsh Aggarwal and Ms.Yosha Dutt, Advocates for School.

¶8

Mr.Karn Bhardwaj, ASC for GNCTD with Mr.Shubham Singh, Mr.Rajat Gaba and Mr.Saurabh Dahiya, Advocates for DOE.

¶9

% Date of Decision: 03^rd October, 2024

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶14

Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 24^th 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.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.10.2024 19:28:18

¶17

LPA No.988/2024

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Learned counsel for the Appellants states that Respondent no.3/Directorate of Education (“DoE”) issued general directions on 18^th 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 24^th September, 2021 passed by the DoE. He states that the order dated 24^th 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 24^th September, 2021.

¶22

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 24^th September, 2021 passed by the DoE. He also refutes all the contentions and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Appellants.

¶23

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

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.10.2024 19:28:18

¶26

LPA No.988/2024

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

structure proposal for academic session 2019-2020 relates to the larger issue of powers of DoE to regulate fees structure of private unaided schools.

¶29

It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 10^th 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶33

OCTOBER 3, 2024 KA

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.10.2024 19:28:18

¶36

LPA No.988/2024

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Master Eklavya Kochhar & Ors. v. Bal Bharati Public School & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Eklavya Kochhar & Ors. v. Bal Bharati Public School & Ors.

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

Ms Naagar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Mak Control and Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs Lt. Col Hardeep Singh Bedi & Anr.

Shyam Babu Gupta Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Rajat Dilwali Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr.

M/S Navansh Engineers and Consultants Vs Union of India