Disposed¶29

Jaspal Kaur Public School v. Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC2 May 2025W.P.(C)/5785/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; Vikas Mahajan, J; W.P.(C) 5785/2025; Article 226; private unaided school fee hike; Directorate of Education GNCTD; withdrawal of hiked fee; commercialisation and profiteering; natural justice; show cause notice; speaking order; supply of complaint; Jaspal Kaur Public School; order dated 17.04.2025 treated as SCN; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without deciding merits: impugned order dated 17.04.2025 to be treated as a show cause notice; petitioner free to file an additional reply within 10 working days; DoE to supply copy of the parents' complaint dated 17.04.2025 on 05.05.2025 and thereafter pass a speaking order. (CM APPL. 26381/2025 for exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.) ¶29

Jaspal Kaur Public School Vs Directorate of Education… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the DoE's order dated 17.04.2025 withdrawing the hiked fee and restraining the school was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, no show cause notice having been issued, and whether its conclusion of commercialisation and profiteering was supported by reasons. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

On the Standing Counsel's clarification, the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 shall be treated as a show cause notice issued by the respondent/DoE to the petitioner school.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner school is at liberty to file an additional reply to the show cause notice within 10 working days, whereafter the DoE may pass a speaking order.

¶27

Key takeaways

Since the copy of the parents' complaint dated 17.04.2025, the basis of the show cause notice, had not been supplied to the school, the DoE is directed to supply it on 05.05.2025 when the school's representative appears before the concerned authority.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 by a private school challenging a DoE order dated 17.04.2025 (passed on a parent's complaint the same day) directing withdrawal of the hiked fee and cessation of alleged discrimination/harassment of students; petitioner contended no show cause notice was issued and the commercialisation/profiteering finding was unsupported. The Standing Counsel clarified the order is in substance a show cause notice calling for a reply within 05 days. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed that the impugned order be treated as a show cause notice (reply dated 22.04.2025 already filed), permitted an additional reply within 10 working days whereafter the DoE may pass a speaking order, and directed supply of the complaint dated 17.04.2025 to the school on 05.05.2025. Interim application for exemption allowed. No merits decided; no costs.

¶1

$~70

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5785/2025 & CM APPL. 26380/2025 JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Advs. with Ms. Chand Chopra, Mr. Sukrit Seth, Mr. Shreedhar Kale, Ms. Disha Joshi and Ms. Neha Bhupthiraju, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC for GNCTD.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 02.05.2025

¶7

CM APPL. 26381/2025 (exemption)

¶8

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶9

Application stands disposed of.

¶10

W.P.(C) 5785/2025

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶12

(A) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and / or an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent by quashing / setting aside the Order No. F.No.DE.15(3286/PSB/2025/4258-4265 dated 17.04.2025 and the findings contained therein;

¶13

(B) Issue a writ of Mandamus and / or an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent directing

¶14

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 01/07/2025 at 23:51:48

¶15

the Respondent not to interfere in or pass orders restricting or prohibiting the Petitioner School from increasing its fees on a yearly basis as per its legitimate needs as long as the same is in accordance with law;

¶16

(C) Grant costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent;

¶17

Mr. Gautam Narayan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the complaint made by the parents of one of the students on 17.04.2025, the impugned order came to be passed on the same day whereby the following directions have been given by the DoE:

¶18

i. withdraw the Hiked Fee with immediate effect till such time as the school satisfies DoE that such fee hike does not lead to commercialisation and profiteering,

¶19

ii. Immediately stop discriminating/harassing the students and allow all the students to attend the classes with immediate effect.

¶20

He submits that before passing such a direction, the principles of natural justice were not complied with, in as much as, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

¶21

He further submits that DoE has concluded that the petitioner is indulging in commercialising and profiteering without any supporting reason.

¶22

He further contends that the previous inspection done by the DoE, to which the attention of the Court has been drawn, shows that the petitioner school had been complying with all the provisions of the Act and no discrepancies, whatsoever, was found.

¶23

In view of the above, issue notice.

¶24

Mr. Sameer Vashisht, the learned Standing Counsel for the

¶25

¶26

DoE/respondent accepts notice. He clarifies the position that the so called impugned order dated 17.04.2025 is, in fact, a show cause notice and the same may be treated as such. To buttress his contention he draws court’s attention to the last paragraph of the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been called upon to submit its reply within a period of 05 days.

¶27

In view of the submission of Mr. Vashisht, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 shall be treated as show cause notice issued by the respondent/DoE to the present petitioner, to which the petitioner school has already submitted its response dated 22.04.2025. However, the respondent school shall be at liberty to file an additional reply to the said show cause notice within a period of 10 working days from today, whereafter the DoE may pass a speaking order.

¶28

At this stage, Mr. Narayan submits that a copy of the complaint dated 17.04.2025 made by the parents of one of the students, which is the basis of issuance of the show cause notice, has not been supplied to the petitioner school.

¶29

In that view of the matter, the respondent/DoE is directed to supply a copy of the said letter dated 17.04.2025 to the school on 05.05.2025, when the representative of the school will appear before the concerned authority. 13. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶30

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶31

MAY 2, 2025/dss

¶32

Jaspal Kaur Public School v. Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspal Kaur Public School v. Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kmg Industrial Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs the Additional Commissioner Adjudication, Cgst

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Sgt Sayan Panja

Vinosha Reality Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 26(3) Delhi & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Hav Mukesh Kumar

Nitin Saxena Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Mubasshir Hasan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smt Rekha Rathore Vs Union of India & Ors.

Au Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Worldwide Flight Services Holding Sa Vs Mr Tarak Saha & Ors.

Residents Welfare Association Indira Gandhi Camp, through Its Vice President & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shubhanshu Sharma and Ors. Vs National Commission for Indian System of Medicine and Others

Glorious Public School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Ansari Abdullah & Ors. Vs Aiims New Delhi & Anr.

Vidhyashree Sarthak Shikshan Sansthan and Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.