AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N.Patel, CJ
Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
C.M.No.31675/2020 (exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.9956/2020
This writ petition, styled as a public interest litigation, has been preferred with the following prayers:-
“i. Direct the respondents to take appropriate steps to ensure proper online Classes for the student/Children of the Delhi Schools.
ii. Direct the respondent's no.2 to take stringent action against private schools who overcharging and denying online classes in Delhi
Schools.
iii. Pass such further or other orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice.â€
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that the allegations made in this petition, and the prayers sought, are vague and
unsupported by proper materials. The counsel for the petitioner failed to explain what the petitioner mean by ‘proper online classes’, as
mentioned in prayer (i) of the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to point out the names of the schools which are overcharging
fees and denying online classes, against which action is sought in prayer clause (ii). Moreover, no details in relation to these allegations have been
furnished by the petitioner in this writ petition. Although the writ petition mentions, in paragraph 7(v) thereof, that a list of 76 private schools has been
compiled which are violating the Government orders in this regard, details of those schools have not been given in the petition. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that these facts have been taken from a newspaper article. The learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to point out the
quantum by which these schools are allegedly overcharging.
It appears that this petition has been preferred by the petitioner without doing any homework and solely on the basis of a newspaper article. Thus,
this petition does not appear to be a public interest litigation rather it is a publicity interest litigation.
The petitioner in this petition is in search of ‘proper online classes’. This is a vague term and can always be a matter of dispute. A finger can
be pointed at any school and allegations can be made against the same that it is not running ‘proper online classes’. The term ‘proper online
classes’ is used by the petitioner without divulging any details about the same and defining what actually it means by ‘proper online classes’.
So far as prayer (ii) of the petition is concerned also, as mentioned above, nothing could be argued out by the counsel for the petitioner as to which
school is overcharging fees and by what amount. When we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the fee prescribed for Classes V,
VI and VII etc., he was unable to provide the details. Not even a single instance has been mentioned by the petitioner in the petition showing a
particular school which is charging fees over and above what has been prescribed by the respondents.
No action can be taken by the Court on such a vague and incomplete petition, styled as a public interest litigation.
We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within four
weeks from today. The aforesaid amount shall be utilized for the programme ‘Access to Justice’.
A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.