Full Text
Translation output
s-6 '1." d s-R-9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P.(c) 7s9912007
FORUM FOR PROMOTION OF QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv with Mr. Vedanta Varma, Advocates
FORUM FOR PROMOTION OF QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv with Mr. Vedanta Varma, Advocates
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Mr. Nitish Singh, Adv. For Director of
Education.
IVIr. Rajiv Bansal and Mr. Rahul Bhandari, Adv. For DDA
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Mr. Nitish Singh, Adv. For Director of
Education.
IVIr. Rajiv Bansal and Mr. Rahul Bhandari, Adv. For DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER oA 20.02.2013 This petition questions the order/notification of Director of School
Education dated 25.1.2007. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said order/notification dated 25.t.2007 has been superseded and a subsequent notification/ order dated 7.1.2011 has been issued pursuant to RTE Act, 2009 and the same has come into force and in that sense the writ petition has become infructuous. However, the learned counsel has submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition should not stand in the way of the petitioner to work out their remedy as regards to the subsequent notification dated 7.1.2011. The learned counsel has submiued that insofar as the other reliefs sought for in this petition are concerned, 2013:DHC:6797-DB s-1 same can also be sought in appropriate proceedings.
In view of the said submissions, the petition is dismissed.
FEBRUARY 20,2013 rd t # 2013:DHC:6797-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER oA 20.02.2013 This petition questions the order/notification of Director of School
Education dated 25.1.2007. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said order/notification dated 25.t.2007 has been superseded and a subsequent notification/ order dated 7.1.2011 has been issued pursuant to RTE Act, 2009 and the same has come into force and in that sense the writ petition has become infructuous. However, the learned counsel has submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition should not stand in the way of the petitioner to work out their remedy as regards to the subsequent notification dated 7.1.2011. The learned counsel has submiued that insofar as the other reliefs sought for in this petition are concerned, 2013:DHC:6797-DB s-1 same can also be sought in appropriate proceedings.
In view of the said submissions, the petition is dismissed.
FEBRUARY 20,2013 rd t # 2013:DHC:6797-DB
JUDGMENT