solicitors & Consultants

G-10/7, Sector- 15, Rohini, Delhi- 110089

web. www.kbjandco.com Email: - advocate@kbjandco.com
Mob- 8826456565; 9350456565
To Dated 15.06.2021
1. Mrs. Sunita Tanwar
Principal, Delhi Public School, Dwarka
Phase-I, Sector-3, Dwarka
Delhi-110034
Email: mail@dpsdwarka.com

2. Mr. V. K. Shunglu
Chairperson, Delhi Public School Society
F- Block, East of Kailash,
Delhi-110065
Email: secretary@dpsfamily.org

Legal Notice for deliberate disobedience of order dated 07.06.2021 passed by a Division
Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA No. 185 of 2021 titled JUSTICE FOR ALL VS
ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS & ANR.

Dear Sir/Madam
Under instruction from the Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Hon. Secretary, Justice for
All, a society registered under society registration Act, 1860 having its registered office
at G-10/7, Sector-15, Rohini Delhi the appellant in the above-mentioned appeal we are
serving you the following notice you the following notice-

1. That my client has filed the above appeal for the children of Delhi in General and
members of my client in particular where the Hon’ble Division bench of Delhi
High Court obliged to issue the notice passed interim directions while rejecting the
stay of Judgment dated 31.05.2021 passed by Ld. Single Judge.

2. That Some of the parents informed my client that you the addressee no. 1 have
issued fee circular in June 2021, under instruction from the addressee No. 2 where
you have misquoted the order dated 31.05.2021 passed by Ld. Single Judge and
further modified by the division bench on 07.06.2021 as per undertaking given by
Action Committee of Unaided private schools of Delhi on behalf of their members
which includes your school.

2. You the addressee deliberately misread the Para 128 of the Rajasthan Judgment
where the supreme court after quashing the order issued by Rajasthan Government
observed that ordinarily they have to remand the fee fixation to the regulatory
 authority but due to practical difficulty they are proposing the state government to
issue the direction (i) to (vii) hence there is no direction but proposal to issue
direction meaning thereby a school could have waited for such direction from the
state government but in the hurry to charge the excess money from parents you
have immediately issued circular which was otherwise not permissible . You the
addressee No. 1 in para 2 of your circular you have misquoted the court direction
and informing management committee as per direction decided for 15% discount
in fess other than tuition fee which is a clear deliberate disobedience of Order dated
31.05.2021 by Ld. single Judge and Order dated 7th of June 2021 in LPA No. 185
of 2021 filed by my client on behalf of children.

3. You the addressees are aware with the fact that the order passed by Division bench
categorically mentions the relevant direction by supreme court in Rajasthan
Judgment by Ld. single Judge as under-

(i) The appellants (school Management of the concerned private unaided school)
shall collect annual school fees from their students as fixed under the Act of
2016 for the academic year 2019-20, but by providing deduction of 15 per cent
on that amount in lieu of unutilized facilities by the students during the relevant
period of academic year 2020-21.

4. You the addressees are well aware with the definition fee under 2(h) of Rajasthan Act
defines the fee as under-
2(h) "fee" means any amount, by whatever name called, collected,
directly or indirectly, by a school for admission of a pupil to any Standard
or course of study.

5. You the addressees will appreciate the fact that after such wide definition under the
Rajasthan Act mentioned under para 128 of Rajasthan act adopted by the Ld. Single
Judge which can not in any stretch of imagination limits the discount for fees other
than tuition fees the new word discovered first time only by you the addressees as the
fees other than tuition fee is neither in petition, nor in any of the orders and it is very
clear that the same is discovered for accommodating a new head namely IT fees which
is a part of tuition fee even mentioned in the Judgment dated 31.05.2020 . Your client
has no reason to read Annual school fee mentioned in the order as fees other than
tuition fee and it is deliberate disobedience of the above-mentioned order.

6. You the addressees are well aware with fee circulars issued in June 2021, deliberately
mentions the incorrect fact of the action committee writ petition. The first prayer of the
writ petition in first prayer challenges 28.08.2020 only and limited challenge to order
dated 18.04.2020 is challenged only for the period when the lock dawn is not
applicable. Your circular is not charging for the period there was not lock dawn hence
it is very clear that you are well aware that the order passed by Ld. single Judge has no
bearing with the prayer of the about writ petition other prayer was for quashing of
18.04.2020 only for the period school is not under lockdown i.e. only few month of
2020 but your demand circular is for entire period and primarily for lock dawn period
 which was not part of any of prayer in the action committee. Which makes it very clear
that the above circular and above misquoting is not under any confusion, but it is
deliberate disobedience.

7. The circular issued by you the addressee no. 1 under instruction from you the addressee
number 2 reflects that you are aware of the fact that the notification dated 18.04.2021
has been quashed by Ld. single Judge up to extent it restrains for collection of the
Development fee and the Annual charges and if the same is related with prayer in action
committee is only for the time it was not lock down. Even if it quashed then also
maximum it could be nonexistent after quashing of the above clause and the necessary
consequence was the 2nd part of section 17(3) where school had to revise the statement
of fee and can collect fee only after the prior sanction of director of education and the
same necessary consequence has been mentioned in para 128 of Rajasthan Judgment
when applied mutates mutandie the 2nd part of section 17(3) shall come in operation
but the Ld. single Judge relied the Rajasthan Judgment which temporarily substitutes
the provision of 2016 act regarding the re fixation of fee due to practical difficulty and
in the case of Delhi Ld. Single Judge framed mechanism to avoid the 2nd part of section
17(3) which includes all heads of the fee not limited to development or the annual fee
or fees other than tuition fee.

8. Now it is very clear that the above circular has not even issued under any of the
confusion it has neither any conformity with the prayer of Action Committee nor it has
any connection with order passed by Ld. Single Judge and modified by Hon’ble
division bench, but it is deliberate modification of the Judicial order and collecting the
fee from the parents by misleading about the order.

Therefore, it is requested please to withdraw the above circular immediately failing

which we have very clear instruction to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings (Civil
or Criminal) against you the addressee.

Digitally signed
KHAGES by KHAGESH B
JHA
H B JHA Date: 2021.06.15
12:39:13 +05'30'

Khagesh B. Jha, Adv.

En No. D/715/2009
M- 8826456565
Email- advocate@kbjandco.com

Note- The letter is digitally signed need not any physical signature.