IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 12.12.2025 The Knowledge Bus Global School, Mohali and another …Petitioners Versus Central Board of Secondary Education and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Seemar, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Ranjodh Singh Jodha, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3-CBSE.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners-School/Trust, fetching grievance from an order dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), wherethrough, the provisional affiliation granted to them, was withdrawn with immediate effect. The students, who were appearing in Class 10^th and 12^th, for the academic year 2025-26, with the petitioners-School/Trust were allowed to appear in the CBSE Board Examinations from the petitioners-School and the students, who were registered in Class 9^th and 11^th, for academic year 2025-26, were suggested to shift to some other nearby CBSE affiliated school, by the Divisional Officer, Chandigarh. An option was also given to the petitioner/school, to apply for registration of affiliation, after fulfilling essential conditions for affiliation, as per affiliation bye laws of the board.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that primarily the only reason for non-continuation of the provisional affiliation is on account of non-payment of lease amount by the earlier lessee. He further submits that even the reasons for initiating this process by the respondent/CBSE, traced back to the complaint made by the Wakf Board itself.

3. While drawing the attention of this Court towards various documents, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now the lease amount has been paid, and even ‘No objection Certificate’ has been extended by the Wakf Board to the respondent/CBSE, so as to restore the provisional affiliation to the petitioners-School.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his prayer only to the extent that on account of the above pleaded supervening events, the petitioners have filed a specific representation(s), disclosing all these facts to the respondent No.1, and their only grievance, as on today, is that the respondent No.1, is not taking any final decision on the representation(s) Annexures P-19 and P-20, respectively.

5. On advance notice of the petition, Mr. B.S. Seemar, Sr. Standing counsel has caused appearance on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 3, today in the Court. He submits that he has no objection in case this Court deems it fit and apt to pass a mandamus upon the respondents No.1 and 3, to decide the representation(s) Annexures P-19 and P-20, respectively, in a time bound manner.

6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a mandamus upon the respondents No.1 and 3, to decide the representation (supra), within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

7. Ordered accordingly.

8. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(KULDEEP TIWARI)

JUDGE December 12, 2025 Manpreet