English 
हिन्दी 
The Delhi high court on Friday deferred its decision on staying Delhi Public School (DPS), Dwarka’s move to expel 32 students over their apparent non-payment of increased fees, even as it indicated that the school appeared to have violated legal procedures by failing to issue prior show cause notices.
The court said it would await the outcome of a related case – in which over 100 parents have urged the court to direct the Directorate of Education (DoE) and the lieutenant governor to take over the school’s administration – before passing any interim orders and posted the matter for further hearing on Monday.
A bench of justice Sachin Datta, hearing a plea by the parents of the expelled students seeking their reinstatement, noted that Rule 35(4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, requires schools to provide a reasonable opportunity to parents or guardians to respond before striking off a student’s name from the rolls.
Senior advocate Debal Banerjee, representing the parents, submitted that the school had not issued such notices. DPS Dwarka’s counsel, senior advocate Pinaki Mishra, contended that notices had been served, but the judge pressed him for specific proof.
“Show me a notice where you informed the students that they would be off the rolls on May 13 if they didn’t pay the fees,” Justice Datta said, adding, “This is a striking off order. Rule 35(4) says that you (the school) have to issue notices. I think I’ll stay this order immediately.”
Though the judge described it as an “open and shut” case of procedural violation, he deferred passing the stay order, saying, “I’ll pass the order on Monday. One day will not make a difference.” He cited the related petition being heard by justice Vikas Mahajan, in which over 100 parents have urged the court to direct DoE and the LG to take over the school’s administration. That bench had reserved its order a day earlier.
On May 9, DPS Dwarka had struck the students off its rolls and barred them from entering the premises, allegedly by deploying bouncers. A similar episode reportedly occurred again on Friday, triggering protests from dozens of parents outside the school. The expulsions mark the latest escalation in a months-long standoff between the school and parents, many of whom have refused to pay the revised fees, citing the lack of approval from DoE.
During the hearing, justice Datta also rebuked the school for the timing of its action. “You could’ve waited for five working days. When the school was about to shut for vacation, you chose the last week. They’ve been ousted in the crucial last week. You derive some sadistic pleasure by depriving the students?” he asked.
DoE, represented by standing counsel Sameer Vashisth, told the court that it had issued an order on Thursday directing the school to reinstate the 32 students, stating that the expulsions were in violation of court orders. The parents, in their plea, also cited the high court’s earlier order from April 16, in which the court had rebuked the school for confining students to the library over unpaid fees and warned that inability to pay did not justify harassment.
At that time, the court had described the treatment as “shabby and inhuman.”
Mishra, however, argued that the school had incurred financial losses of ₹49 crore due to parents refusing to pay the revised fees, and maintained that the DoE had no authority in the matter.
The case will now continue on Monday.
