IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 506/2014
  
  
  
  THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF
  
  THE PINNACLE SCHOOL and ANR. ..... Petitioners
  
  Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate
  
  with Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate.
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DLEHI and ANR. ..... Respondents
  
  Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate with
  
  Mr. V.K. Tandon and Mr. Amiet Andlay,
  
  Advocates.
  
  
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   22.01.2014
  
  CM Appl. 975/2014 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 506/2014
  
  Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
  
  Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 506/2014 and CM Appl. 974/2014
  
  Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
  02nd January, 2014 passed by the Director of Education as well as for
  quashing of the report dated 29th November, 2013 given by a Committee
  constituted by an order of the Minister of Education.
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 506/2014 page 1 of 3
  
  
  
  Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits
  that the impugned order dated 02nd January, 2014 is in violation of
  principle of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner has not even been
  given a hearing prior to passing of the impugned order. He further
  states that the impugned order dated 02nd January, 2014 has been passed
  by a Director of Education, who had been relieved from his post on 31st
  December, 2013.
  
  On the other hand, Ms. Zubeda Begum, learned Standing counsel for
  Government of NCT of Delhi, states that present writ petition is not
  maintainable as an alternate efficacious remedy is available with the
  petitioner by way of an appeal under Section 4(7) and Rule 58 of the
  Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
  
  Ms. Zubeda Begum further states that the impugned order has
  actually been passed by the Director of Education on 31st December, 2013,
  but has been dispatched on 02nd January, 2014.
  
  In rejoinder, Mr. Nigam, learned senior counsel for petitioner
  submits that the present writ petition is maintainable as an alternate
  remedy is only a rule of prudence and not a statutory prohibition.
  
  Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view
  that there is merit in the argument advanced by learned senior counsel
  for petitioner.
  
  However, as the scope of an appeal is much larger, this Court
  directs the petitioner to file a statutory appeal as directed under the
  Delhi School Education Act, 1973 within a period of four weeks.
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 506/2014 page 2 of 3
  
  
  
  However, to balance the equities, till the appeal is heard and
  disposed of by the Hon?ble Lieutenant Governor, status quo with regard to
  the school as of today shall continue.
  
  Ms. Bindu Khanna is given liberty to apply for impleadment in the
  proceedings to be filed before the Hon?ble Lieutenant Governor. The said
  application would be decided in accordance with law. Needless to say,
  the rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
  
  With the aforesaid observations, present petition and application
  stand disposed of.
  
  Order dasti.
  
  
  
  
  
  MANMOHAN, J
  
  JANUARY 22, 2014
  
  js
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 506/2014 page 3 of 3
  
  
  
  2
  
  $