[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Delhi Public School Dwarka vs National Commission For Protection Of … on 5 June, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05.06.2025
+ W.P.(C) 10434/2024
DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL DWARKA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sakshi
Mendiratta, Mr. Bhuwan Gugnani and
Ms. Nupur, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR
PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhaid Parikh, Mr. Rishabh
Dubey and Ms. Garima Sardana,
Advs. for NCPCR.
Mr. Manoj K. Sharma, Mr. Manish
Gupta, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekhar,
Ms. Akanchha Jhunjhunwala, Ms.
Deepti Verma and Mr. Sandeep
Gupta, Advs. for parents.
Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC and Ms.
Avni Singh, Adv. for DOE.
Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC, Mr.
Kautilya Birat, GP and SI Ram Singh
for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.29976/2025 (filed on behalf of parents/applicants for directions)
1. The present application has been filed by the applicants (i.e., parents
of students of the petitioner school) alleging non-compliance with the
directions contained in the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10434/2024 Page 1 of 9
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.06.2025
12:36:07
the present proceedings.
2. Essentially, the grievance canvassed by the applicants is that in
contravention of the said order dated 16.04.2025, the petitioner school has
taken coercive and arbitrary action against the students in guise of arrears of
fees.
3. It is stated that the petitioner vide an email dated 09.05.2025,
informed the applicants that the names of their children have been removed
from its rolls with immediate effect on account of ‘non-payment of school
fee under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973′. The
said email/communication reads as under:
“Dear Parent,
This has reference to our various reminders through monthly SMS,
emails, telephonic calls and final reminder/show cause notice issued
to you on account of non-payment of the school fee of your ward
Master/ Ms. Xxxxx Admission No. xxxxxx Class xxxxx
You are hereby informed that the name of your ward Master/
Ms.xxxxx Admission No. xxxxx. has been struck off from the school
rolls with immediate effect from Friday, 09.05.2025 (A/N) on account
of non-payment of school fee under rule 35 of the Delhi School
Education Act and Rules, 1973.
You are advised not to send your ward to the school. He/she shall not
be permitted to enter the school premises. The RFID card of your
ward has also been disabled and, if you send your ward to school
despite his/her name being struck off from the school rolls, it shall be
at your risk and consequence.
You are requested to kindly collect the Transfer Certificate of your
ward from the administration department of the school on 13.05.2025
between 2:30 p.m. to 03:00 p.m. This is issued with the orders of the
concerned authorities and in accordance with the rules and
regulations.
Principal
DPS Dwarka”
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the applicants submitted that the
decision of the petitioner to remove the children of the applicants from its
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10434/2024 Page 2 of 9
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.06.2025
12:36:07
roll was undertaken without any prior intimation/reasoned order and in
violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the timing of
the said action is not only prejudicial but also jeopardizes the academic and
emotional well-being of the students inasmuch as many of the students who
have been removed by the petitioner from its rolls are students of class X,
who have already completed the pre-registration process for the upcoming
Board examination during the previous academic session.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has resorted to engage
“bouncers” in order to prevent the children of the applicants from entering
the school premises. It has been averred in the application that despite the
subsistence of the order dated 16.04.2025, passed by this Court in the
present proceedings, the children were not only mistreated and threatened by
the “bouncers” but were also forced to wait in a school bus for two hours
before being dropped back home.
6. It is stated that the petitioner is deliberately refraining from debiting
the cheques submitted by the applicants towards the fee approved by the
respondent no.4/Directorate of Education and has even refused from
accepting fee for the subsequent months, including May, 2025 with ulterior
motive to mount pressure upon the applicants.
7. Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned senior counsel for the non-
applicant/petitioner (Delhi Public School, Dwarka) has vehemently opposed
the present application. He has raised various contentions; inter alia,
referring to proceedings pending before coordinate Bench/es of this Court
whereby the issue of fees to be charged by the petitioner school is being
agitated. He submits that it is not permissible for the applicant to agitate this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10434/2024 Page 3 of 9
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.06.2025
12:36:07
aspect in multiple proceedings.
8. He has sought to justify the action taken by the school and has drawn
attention to the credentials of the Delhi Public School Society which is a
pre-eminent body in the field of education with a proven track record of
serving the cause of education.
9. Specific attention was drawn by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner to the fact that in case of Divya Mattey and Ors. vs. L.G. GNCTD
and Ors., W.P.(C) 6500/2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court is seized of
the issues as regards fees to be charged from the students of the petitioner
school. He seeks that no order be passed in the present proceedings which
interfere with or is contradictory to the exercise undertaken by the
coordinate Bench.
10. Arguments in the present application were heard on 19.05.2025, on
which date order was reserved.
11. It transpires that in CM. APPL. 29605/2025 filed alongwith W.P.(C)
6500/2025 (Divya Mattey and Ors. vs. L.G. GNCTD and Ors.), certain
directions have been passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 16.05.2025. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“30. However, the interim relief sought by the petitioners in the
present case with regard to the subsequent academic years including
current year 2025-26 does not persuade this Court inasmuch as
nothing has been placed on record to show that the DoE has rejected
the fixation of fee by the school for the academic session 2024-25
onwards. Until and unless the DoE reviews the financial statements of
the school and on its findings, rejects the statement of fee providing
for enhancement for the academic sessions 2024-25 onwards on the
touch stone of “profiteering” and “commercialisation” of education,
the enunciation of law as noted above does not provide for any
embargo on such enhancement of fee.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10434/2024 Page 4 of 9
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.06.2025
12:36:07
31. In that view of the matter, the parents of the students studying in
DPS Dwarka ought to pay the fee as per the statements of fee
submitted by the school for the academic sessions 2024-25 onwards,
till the time the DoE takes a decision on the same, and further subject
to the final outcome of the present writ petition.
32. Mr. Pinaki Misra and Mr. Puneet Mittal, learned senior counsels
appearing on behalf of respondent no.4/DPS-Dwarka, on instructions,
fairly state that the school is amenable to the petitioners paying 50%
of the hiked school fee.
33. Therefore, it is directed that the wards of the petitioners shall be
allowed to continue their studies in their respective classes till the
pendency of the present petition subject to the parents depositing 50%
of the hiked school fee for the academic years 2024-25 onwards. It is
clarified that the rebate of 50% is on the hiked component of the fee,
the base fee shall be paid in full. It is further clarified that the dues in
terms of the present order with regard to the wards of the petitioners
shall be calculated after adjusting the excess fee collected for the year
2023-24, in terms of DoE’s order dated 22.05.2024. The parties are,
however, at liberty to seek variation or modification of the directions
contained in the present order, in the altered circumstances.”
12. In light of the aforesaid order, on 04.06.2025, an affidavit has been
filed by the Principle-cum-Manager of the petitioner school, inter alia,
stating as under:-
“2. That in view of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in
W.P.(C) 6500/2025 titled as Divya Mattey and Ors. v. LG GNCTD and Ors, the
petitioner has withdrawn the strike off orders dated 09.05.2025 issued to the
parents of the petitioner school under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education
and Rules, 1973 (herein after referred to as DSE Act and Rules) and that the
petitioner school has reinstated the names of the students subject to the parents
depositing the outstanding fee dues in terms of the directions of this Hon’ble
Court in W.P.(C) 6500/2025. Copy of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed In
W.P.(C) 6500/2025 titled as Divya Mattey and Ors. v. LG GNCTD and Ors is
annexed herewith as Annexure-I. Copy of reinstatement orders issued by the
petitioner school is annexed herewith as Annexure-2.
3. That the petitioner school had struck off the names of 31 children from the
school rolls under rule 35 of the DSE Act and Rules, for non-payment of the
school fee. The details of the 31 children are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Name of the Students Admission Class/ Section Balance as on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10434/2024 Page 5 of 9
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.06.2025
12:36:07
Number 31.03.2025 (In
INR)
1 ADITYA SHARMA D6698 XI-C 133676
2 AVISHI AGARWAL D6344 XI-E 142594
3 DAKSH GUPTA D9146 IV-C 165208
4 FALAK GUPTA D6948 X-A 153676
5 GAURIKA D9729 III-D 115769
6 KRISHAV MIGLANI D8943 IX-D 122135
7 KARTIK DABAS D6781 X-C 121634
8 KRITIKA DABAS D6780 X-D 100904
9 RUDRANSH SINGH D8220 VI-E 105094
10 DHRUV SINGH D8626 V-E 139640
RAJPUT
11 YANVI SINGH D7261 IX-G 139490
RAJPUT
12 SWASTIK JHA D6798 X-E 155700
13 SHAURYA BHATIA D9303 X-C 157100
14 NISHAD MEHTA D7665 VIII-F 156535
15 HITESH KHANNA D8701 V-B 156394
16 ISHITA MRIGANK D8214 VI-E 155068
17 CLAIRE LUNNEIMOI D7951 VII-B 150981
HAOKIP
18 KUSHAGRA VASHIST D9189 IV-B 147202
19 AVNIE ADLAKHA D9447 X-C 140530
20 RAAVI VERMA D7095 IX-B 136262
21 ANAISHA GUPTA D8640 V-C 128574
22 VEDAANSH SINGH D8501 IX-A 120825
23 KAAVYA GOSWAMI D8845 IX-C 120471
24 RASHIKA GARG D9236 VI-G 115408
25 NIHAAL P MENON D8741 VII-F 113904
26 HARSH PRASHANT D9223 V-E 111263
SAPKALE
27 ZIVA MADAN D9728 III-C 105894
28 KUSHANK D9201 IV-C 105194
MAHENDRU
29 SHARVAS BHALLA D7912 VII-B 105094
30 GURNEK SINGH D8620 V-C 147250
KHURANA
31 GURNOOR D7962 VII-G 147250
KHURANA
4116719TOTAL OUTSTANDING BALANCE: Rs. 41,16,719/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakhs
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10434/2024 Page 6 of 9
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.06.2025
12:36:07
Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred Nineteen only)
4. That it is pertinent to mention that the parents of Gurnek Singh Khurana and
Gurnoor Khurana (aforementioned at S.No. 30 and 31) had stopped sending the
children to the school with the commencement of the academic year 2025-26
from April 2025, much prior to the issuance of strike off order dated
09.05.2025. Therefore, the petitioner school has not restored the names of the
said children.
5. Furthermore, the parent of Gaurika and Krishav Miglani (aforementioned at
S.No. 5 and 6 respectively) applied for School Leaving Certificate/Transfer
Certificate on 03.06.2025 after the petitioner school had duly issued the order
of re-instatement of the children on the school rolls vide email dated
02.06.2025. Copy of the email dated 03.06.2025 sent by the parent of Gaurika
and Krishav Miglani to the petitioner school, is annexed herewith as Annexure
A-3.
6. It is most humbly submitted that the names of the children have been re-
instated on the school rolls subject to the payment of the fee dues as directed by
this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) 6500/2025, which is further subject to the final
outcome of W.P.(C) 6500/2025, W.P.(C) 14640/2024 and W.P.(C) 9243/2024.”
13. Since the impugned order/s whereby the name of 31 children had
been struck off the rolls of the school, has been withdrawn and the
concerned students have been reinstated, the controversy raised in the
present application has become moot.
14. However, it is clarified that if the school seeks to take any action in
future by taking recourse to Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules,
1973, then the school will (i) issue a prior communication specifically
putting the concerned students and/or their parents/guardians to notice as to
the date on which the students are proposed to be struck off the rolls; (ii)
give a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such action.
15. This Court is also constrained to express its dismay at the alleged
conduct of the petitioner school in engaging “bouncers” to physically block
entry of certain students into the school premises. Such a reprehensible
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10434/2024 Page 7 of 9
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.06.2025
12:36:07
practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only disregard
to the dignity of a child but also fundamental misunderstanding of a school’s
role in the society.
16. Public shaming/intimidation of a student on account of financial
default, especially through force or coercive action, not only constitutes
mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well being and
self-worth of a child. The use of “bouncers” fosters a climate of fear,
humiliation and exclusion that is incompatible with the fundamental ethos of
a school.
17. A school though charges fees for the services rendered, cannot be
equated with a pure commercial establishment. The driving force and
character of a school (particularly a school such as the petitioner, which is
run by a pre-eminent society) is rooted not in profit maximisation but in
public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children. The
primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not
to operate as a business enterprise.
18. The school, no doubt, is entitled to charge appropriate fees, especially
given the financial outlay required to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff
and provide a conducive learning environment. However, the school is
different from a normal commercial establishment, inasmuch as it carries
with it fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards its students.
19. It must also be emphasised that the concerned parents are obliged to
adhere and comply with the orders passed by this Court as regards payment
of requisite fees to the school. The judgment/order dated 16.05.2025 passed
by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 6500/2025 and CM APPL.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10434/2024 Page 8 of 9
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.06.2025
12:36:07
29605/2025, gives clear and cogent directions as to the amount of the fees
which is to be payable.
20. It is hoped and expected that the petitioner school as also the
applicants/parents will act with circumspection and cooperate with each
other with a view to advance the interest of the concerned students.
21. The present application stands disposed of.
JUNE 5, 2025/at/sl SACHIN DATTA, J Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10434/2024 Page 9 of 9 By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:05.06.2025 12:36:07
[ad_2]
Source link