$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6374/2013 & CM APPL. 2971/2014, CM APPL. 1356/2015, CM APPL. 1357/2015 SURINDER SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Sethi in person for P-1, 4 and 6, through SPA for P-1 Mr. Surinder Singh, P-4 Mr. Rahul Bisht and P-6 Surinder Singh.

versus RAMJAS SCHOOL & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Jain, Mr. Binay Kumar Joshi, Mr. Deepanshu Raheja, Advs.

for R-1&2 Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil), GNCTD Dr. S S Hooda, Mr. Shaurya Banshtu, Mr. Manpreet Singh, Adv. for R-

5/ CAG Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Adv. for R-3 Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advs. for DOE/ GNCTD CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 16.02.2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

i. “To Quash the illegal Tuition Fee Hike,- Development Fee and the Educomp Class fee levied in the session

2013-14.

ii. Direct the Directorate of Education to take action against the school Authority and the management of the school be taken over by the Directorate Of Education Government Of NCT Delhi , by appointing the committee of Directors/ managers to manage and take the financial decisions of the school, iii. May be pleased to appoint any chartered accountant of repute to maintain the accounts of the School: And further appoint the Financial auditors from the list of auditors maintained by the Delhi High Court in the Companies Side Jurisdiction, to audit the accounts of the School regularly.

iv. Direct the Respondent No.4 and 3 to submit the Audit report and the letters, accounts etc. supplied by the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to them for the audit and enquiry purposes to the petitioners;

v. May be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to take actionagainsttheRespondentNo.1and2fortheviolation of the provisions of the Act, rules; circulars; directions;

orders issued under the Act.

vi. This Hon'ble court may be pleased to levy costs of the proceedings suffered by the Petitioners, onto the Respondent no. 1 and 2 for challenging their illegal action…”

2. Admittedly, the petition is lying pending in this Court for about 13 years and the petitioners whose children were studying in respondent No. 1 school, have moved on in life.

3. Mr. Sethi, for petitioner Nos. 1, 4 and 6 has been heard.

4. HestatesthattheDevelopmentFeeandEducompClassFeechargedby the respondent No. 1 in the year session 2013-2014 was contrary to the Department of Education Guidelines and judgments of High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. My attention has been drawn to an order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Directorate of Education pursuant to the directions of this Court. The said order seems to suggest that the Tuition Fee and the Development Fee were rightly charged but the Educomp Class Fee of Rs. 135/- per month during 2013-14 was wrongly charged and liable to be refunded.

6. The petitioners have challenged this report, but the said challenge has failed.

7. Itisdirectedthatthesaidamountwillbereturnedalongwithinterest@

9% p.a. The order passed today shall not interdict any other proceedings initiated by the parties inter se.

8. Additionally,the status report shows that some cases were initiated and registered by the principal of respondent/school against the petitioners for approaching this court to address their grievances. There are grievancesofthepetitionersregardingharassmentincludingcasesfiled on the petitioners for approaching this court against the fee hike.

9. The Department of Education shall conduct an enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioners regarding false cases initiated against them for approaching this court against the fee hike and shall give a report to the director of Department of Education and the director shall take appropriate actions.

10. After conclusion of the enquiryand the action, both the reports shall be shared with the petitioners.

11. With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

12. In case the petitioners are aggrieved,