IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Harshpal Singh Sawhney & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10442 of 2015
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Commercialization - Education - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Rule 170 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 - Affiliation By-laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the commercialization of education and corrosion of standards of education management, especially with reference to the Delhi Public School Society (DPSS). They sought directions to inquire into and regulate the transactions between Education Societies and Franchise Schools and inspect the affairs of the schools operated by DPSS.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) had taken stern action from time to time, including imposing penalties on defaulting schools that violated the affiliation bye-laws. The court concluded that no further orders were required in the present PIL and directed CBSE to conclude all proceedings initiated in respect of various schools mentioned in the PIL within six months.
Issues: Commercialization of education, irregularities in the management of DPSS, violation of affiliation bye-laws
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the CBSE's actions in imposing penalties on schools violating affiliation bye-laws, as well as the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Rule 170 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
Final Decision: The present PIL stands disposed of, and the petitioners are free to take recourse to other remedies available under the law. CBSE is directed to conclude all proceedings initiated in respect of various schools mentioned in the PIL within six months.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The Petitioners before this Court have filed this Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the commercialization of education and corrosion of standards of education management, especially with reference to Respondent No. 5 herein, the Delhi Public School Society ("DPSS"). Accordingly, the Petitioners have sought, inter-alia, directions to Respondent No. 1, the Central Board of Secondary Education ("CBSE"), to inquire into and regulate the transactions between Education Societies and Franchise Schools and, more specifically, inspect the affairs of the schools operated by DPSS.
2. The Petitioners' contention is that the Respondent No. 5, Delhi Public School Society is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the Society through its Chairman i.e. Respondent No.6 Mr. V.K. Shunglu has executed various joint venture agreements with several schools (franchisees agreements) for permitting certain other schools to use the name of Delhi Public School (DPS), its logo and motto.
3. It has been stated that large number of agreements have been executed between the Respondent Society and certain schools, and the Petitioners have given examples of certain schools. The Petitioners have stated that one such agreement has been executed with M/s Rachna Educational Society, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, for setting up of a school at Warangal. The M/s Rachna Educational Society as per the agreement has to pay sum of Rs.12 lakhs to the DPSS.
4. Similar agreement has been executed in respect of Delhi Public School, Kashipur, Uttarakhand for sum of Rs.27,57,500/-, and other agreements have been executed in favour of DPS, Pinjore, Haryana and DPS Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh as well.
5. The Petitioners have given examples of various franchisee agreements executed from time to time and have alleged a large number of irregularities in respect of management of DPS Society.
6. The Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the Writ Petition:
"a. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1to inquire into the nature of agreements and transactions between Education Societies and Franchisee schools and take, appropriate action against them, and
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to 3 to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of Respondent No. 5 and' other Societies and Trust, to take appropriate action against the erring members and office bearers, and
c. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to inspect the affairs of the schools run by Respondent No. 5 as per Rule 170 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, and
d. Quash and set aside the illegal Joint Venture Agreements and Memorandum of Understandings such as entered into by Respondent No. 5 and other similarly placed Societies pertaining to granting of/operation of franchisee schools. Pass any such further orders or directions as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
7. The Petitioners have impleaded the State Government, the Central Board of Secondary Education as well as other authorities as Respondents.
8. By filing interlocutory applications, the Petitioners have brought on record various other agreements executed by the Respondent Society as well as their balance sheets. The CBSE has filed a detailed and exhaustive reply and it has been stated that the Board, in accordance with the Affiliation By-laws, grants affiliation to the schools subject to fulfilment of the norms, and By-law 21 provides for power and functions of the School Management Committee. Affiliation By-law 21 under Chapter VI of the By-laws, reads as under:
"21. Powers and Functions of the School Management Committee
Subject to overall control of the Society/Trust/Company Registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 the School Managing Committee shall have the following powers/functions:
i. It shal
The court affirmed that compliance with statutory requirements for educational institution affiliation is mandatory and cannot be waived, even for minority institutions, emphasizing that violations c....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks and the enforcement of injunctions to prevent trademark infringement.
Point of Law : The specific objection on locus standi of petitioner to initiate Public Interest Litigation is not denied. The person prosecuting public interest litigation should not have any interes....
The Fee Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating complaints post-enactment of the Punjab Regulation of Fee of Unaided Educational Institutions Act, 2016, leading to the quashing of its ord....
If a person or authority is a 'State' within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution, admittedly a writ petition under Art.226 would lie against such a person or body.
Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge disciplinary actions in private law contexts, but the CBSE must act on violations of its Bye-laws, which possess statutory force.
The court affirmed the necessity for state authorities to properly consider requests for correcting official school names to ensure consistency with prior recognitions, emphasizing adherence to proce....
Relief sought in a PIL cannot be granted without hearing the respondents, and election disputes should be addressed in the appropriate forum.
The termination of a contract without assigning reasons is binding as per the terms of the contract. Private parties performing public functions may not be subject to the writ jurisdiction of the cou....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.