School fee hike row: DPS Dwarka cancels order striking names of 30 students over failure to pay hiked fee
As Justice Sachin Datta's bench convened to deliver a verdict on the parents' plea challenging the school's action, the school's counsel stated that the decision had been withdrawn given an earlier order issued by a coordinate bench led by Justice Vikas Mahajan, as reported by Hindustan Times.
Last Wednesday, justice Mahajan had directed the directed the expelled students to pay 50% of the increased fees for the academic year 2024-25, pending DOE's decision on their representation.
Taking note of the submission, justice Datta remarked that the grievance no longer survived and said that he would pass an appropriate order, taking on record the statement.
'Thus the grievance does not survive. I'll take note of the fact that you have withdrawn the order. I'll pass an appropriate order with observations and directions,' Justice Datta said, HT reported.
LiveLaw reported citing cousel, 'We have withdrawn the suspension order striking off students and have filed an affidavit to that effect on Monday.'
Earlier, ANI reported on June 2, citing sources, that the Delhi government is preparing to introduce an ordinance aimed at regulating fees in private schools.
The draft of the proposed ordinance, titled the Delhi School Education Bill, 2025, has reportedly been sent to the Law Department for review.
The move follows a meeting held on April 29, chaired by Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, during which the Delhi government approved a bill to regulate school fees in both private and government institutions across the national capital.
On April 16, show-cause notices were issued to 10 schools over arbitrary fee hikes and failure to submit their audit reports. The current Delhi government has already collected audited financial reports from 600 schools as part of its ongoing effort to regulate school fee structures.
(With inputs from agencies)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Why should prisoner foot bill?': Delhi HC reserves order on MP Engineer Rashid's plea against cost to attend Parliament
The Delhi High Court Monday orally asked the government why Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh alias Engineer Rashid should bear the expenses when he is attending Parliament while on custody parole, and not on interim bail. The court reserved its order on Rashid's plea seeking a waiver on the cost to be borne by the MP for his security and travel arrangements for attending House proceedings. The matter was heard by a bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Bhambhani. 'What I'm very concerned about…this man has not even gotten his liberty back (through bail or interim bail)…the jail is travelling with him (while he is out on custody parole), and when the jail travels with him, it is for jail to incur the expense…,' Justice Bhambhani remarked orally. Addressing Lok Sabha two weeks ago, the Independent MP from Baramulla began with a disclaimer: 'Please don't stop me for 10-12 minutes, for God's sake. I'm coming from (representing a constituency of) Kashmir, I'm coming from Tihar Jail…' After reading a couplet, he went on to condemn the April 22 Pahalgam attack while emphasising the need to 'win the hearts of Kashmiris to end militancy in Kashmir'. He added, 'It is not a communal issue. It is a political issue. You need to give a political resolution.' The MP went on to say, 'Main aapse puchna chahta hu, isliye nahi ki main aaj Rs 1.5 lakh deke idhar aaya, lekin aap jab mere liye nahi bol sake, aap Kashmiriyo ke liye kya bolenge. (I want to ask you, not because I had to pay Rs 1.5 lakh to attend Parliament, but when you couldn't speak up for me, how will you raise your voice for Kashmiris).' Rashid defeated National Conference leader Omar Abdullah, who is currently the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, in the Baramulla seat by over 2 lakh votes in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. However, he has been lodged in Delhi's Tihar Jail since 2019 in a case of alleged terror funding and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has accused him of using various public platforms to 'propagate the ideology of separatism and secessionism'. He was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the NIA case lodged in 2017 against Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed and other 'secessionist and separatist' leaders, and a special NIA court in Delhi framed charges against Rashid in March 2022. In March this year, the Delhi High Court, while allowing the MP to attend Parliament during the Budget session, had imposed the condition that the expenses for Rashid's travel and other arrangements shall be borne by him while he is in the state's custody. When the same condition was imposed on him a second time to attend the Monsoon Session of Parliament, Rashid – through his advocate Vikhyat Oberoi – challenged it before the high court. In the cost break-up furnished by the Delhi Government on Monday before the bench, it was submitted that Rashid's Parliament escort party comprises an assistant commissioner of police, an inspector, a sub-inspector, an assistant sub-inspector, and eight head constables. In a notification on November 12, 2024, the Delhi government had fixed the charges for deployment of 'additional police on payment, to private persons, commercial establishments and for other duties' as per provisions of the Delhi Police Act and Delhi Police (Miscellaneous Matters) Rules. However, Senior Advocate N Hariharan, arguing on behalf of Rashid, pointed out that the notification will not be applicable in the MP's case. Justice Bhambhani also questioned the Delhi Prisons counsel on the rationale of the costs. 'He (Rashid) has to pay the salary (of the escort party)?…These people (police personnel being deployed) are not contractual employees of the state. If this ACP or the inspector is on leave, he (the police personnel) would still get a salary. So why should a person who has been granted custody parole, foot the bill for their salary?' A statement from the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Nyayik Abhiraksha Vahini, Delhi Armed Police (NAV DAP) from July 23 reads, 'As per instructions from the Govt of NCT of Delhi, NAV DAP is charging Rs 7,039 for each ACP, Rs 7,176 for each inspector, Rs 5,739 for each SI, Rs 4,783 for each ASI, Rs 4,232 for each HC (head constable) and Rs 3,658 for each constable per shift i.e., per day of five hours and per night of four hours for the deployment of police guard to private persons on payment basis. As such, (considering) 10 hours in a day, then total 02 shifts will be calculated and the estimate cost of custody charge will come to Rs 1,44,795,' for Rashid. The DAV NAP transports prisoners between jails and courts or investigative agency offices.
New Indian Express
5 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Parliament breach: Delhi HC seeks police reply on bail plea
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday sought police's response on a bail plea filed in the December 2023 Parliament security breach case. A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain issued notice to the police on the bail plea of accused Lalit Jha in the case and posted the matter for October 8. Jha challenged a trial court's April 28 order rejecting his bail plea. He claimed of surrendering on December 15, 2023 and spending 1.8 years in custody since then. 'At the current stage the case is at the stage of arguments on charge and the compliance of Section 207 CrPC. It is also relevant to mention here that in the case there are 133 witnesses in the main chargesheet. However, no single member of Parliament has been enlisted in the list of witnesses,' his plea said. Jha argued no harm or injury or loss of property happened to the members. He claimed the trial court was wrong in not considering the 'true facts and circumstances' while dismissing his bail plea.
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC refuses relief to Jai Bhim Nagar residents, allows demolition
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by residents of Jai Bhim Nagar in Powai, challenging the demolition action scheduled by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on that day. Raising concerns over the dangers of footpath encroachment, the court allowed the corporation to go ahead with the demolition. However, no demolition action took place on Monday. Mumbai, India - August 14, 2025: Residence of the Jai Bhim nagar slam staying on the footpath at Powai in Mumbai, India, on Thursday, August 14, 2025. (Photo by Satish Bate/ Hindustan Times) (Hindustan Times) Meena Govind Limbole and 23 others, who filed the petition on Monday, stated that they have fallen victim to the brutal power of the State administration, consisting of police personnel and BMC officials, who formed 'a deadly combination' at the behest of a local builder/developer. More than 800 families were ousted in June last year in an allegedly high-handed, illegal, and inhuman action of demolition of houses in which they had been living for more than two decades. 'In the operation, 800 huts housing over 3000 people were thrown out of their homes after the police and BMC personnel entered their premises and assaulted them brutally,' it said. The petitioners alleged that the Powai police and BMC officials not only beat up the slum dwellers but also falsely implicated them in criminal offences under the Maharashtra Police Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Earlier in June, Tivoli Cooperative Housing Society and Evita Cooperative Housing Society approached the high court seeking the removal of encroachments by hutment dwellers in Jai Bhim Nagar on the footpath that faces the society. They said it caused them immense nuisance and posed a traffic hazard. Their petition stated that a dispute between the residents of Jai Bhim Nagar and the concerned builder over the June 2024 demolition of huts in Jai Bhim Nagar led the residents to occupy the footpath, making it impossible for pedestrians to walk there. It has also caused traffic congestion and made the area accident-prone, stated the petition by the CHS. The petition by the CHS further alleged that the concerned authorities have not taken appropriate steps to shift the hutment dwellers to suitable places by removing encroachment on the footpath yet. Authorities have ignored cooking activities that led to fire in the past, alleged the petition. As residents wash their clothes and utensils on the footpath, it has made the area unhygienic and increases risks of a disease outbreak, it added. 'This omission on the part of the office of the concerned authorities is completely illegal, and affecting the lives of residents of the Petitioners and other societies too,' the petition stated. Consequently, on July 7, 2025, the high court observed that the neatly built pavement in Powai was 'completely encroached' by tin and plastic sheds used not only for shelter but for daily activities such as cooking, selling food, and drying clothes. 'When large public expenditure is incurred in creating such infrastructure… the Municipal Corporation and its officers simply turn a blind eye,' noted the division bench of justice GS Kulkarni and justice Arif Doctor. The court on Monday directed the municipal corporation to form a special cell consisting of an additional commissioner and two senior officers to group wards and survey all encroached footpaths in Mumbai. Following this, the cell would take out eviction action against the encroachers. Following the order, the civic body informed the court that it intends to demolish the slum colony with police assistance on Monday. Advocate Rakesh Singh, who is representing the residents, said BMC officials had not reached the spot on Monday evening.
