Gaurav Ghai Sec School Ldh vs. K.K Yadav

Facts

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful non-compliance with a High Court order dated 28.09.2023. The original order was passed in CWP-218 of 2023 concerning petitioner no.2-school's affiliation with the Punjab School Education Board. The petitioner argued that the respondent-Board failed to entertain their application for affiliation for classes 9th and 10th based on old fee structures and parameters, despite the court order. The respondent-Board submitted that the school was not affiliated for the relevant classes, and thus the initial prayer was misconceived. They also stated that the application for affiliation for the academic year commencing 01.04.2024 needed to be made within the specified slot, and compliance with current conditions was necessary.

Held

The Court held that no finding of willful non-compliance against the respondent-Board could be recorded. The reasoning was based on the findings of the LPA Bench in its order dated 18.10.2024. The LPA Bench had considered a similar situation where amended regulations came into force, increasing the application fee and area requirements. The LPA Bench ruled that amended regulations should apply en bloc to all applicants, and if norms are not fulfilled, the application would not be considered. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the respondent-Board's action of not considering the petitioner's application due to non-fulfillment of amended norms did not amount to willful violation of the earlier order. The contempt petition was therefore dismissed as devoid of merits. The Court discharged the rule and disposed of pending applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent-Board willfully failed to comply with the order dated 28.09.2023 by not entertaining the petitioner's application for affiliation based on old fee structures and parameters, thereby constituting contempt of court? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent-Board was liable for willful violation of the court order by not entertaining their affiliation application under the old fee and parameters. They sought initiation of contempt proceedings. Respondent's arguments: The respondent-Board referred to an order dated 18.10.2024 in LPA-1878-2024, which dealt with a similar plea. In that case, the court held that amended regulations, including increased application fees and area requirements, should apply en bloc to everyone. The respondent argued that based on this precedent, no willful non-compliance could be attributed to them, as the application was not considered due to the non-fulfillment of amended norms.