"Mere Knowledge Of Disposal Not Knowledge Of Order": Delhi High Court Dismisses School's Challenge Against Delay Condonation Of Appeal In Fee-Defaulting Students Discrimination Case
|The Bench reaffirmed test of "sufficient cause" under Section 101 JJ Act, and upheld a Sessions Court order that had condoned a 125-day delay in filing an appeal against dismissal of a complaint alleging discriminatory treatment.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Apeejay School, Saket, challenging a Sessions Court order that had condoned a 125-day delay in filing an appeal against dismissal of a complaint alleging discriminatory treatment of fee-defaulting students during their annual examinations. The Court while applying the proviso to Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and held that mere awareness that a complaint stood disposed of could not be equated with actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the order itself, and that the period of limitation could only run from the latter.
Reaffirming the settled test for condonation of delay, the Court held that whether "sufficient cause" exists depends on the bona fides of the explanation offered, and that an applicant who has not been negligent and whose explanation is not concocted is ordinarily entitled to condonation, while a court retains discretion to refuse it where the explanation is found lacking in bona fides.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed, “The remark made by one of the parents under the heading “Citizen Remarks” would only show that he was aware of the disposal of the complaint by the CWC vide order dated 05.03.2024. Mere knowledge of the factum of disposal, however, cannot be equated with receipt or knowledge of the contents of the order itself. The said remark does not, in any manner, establish that the respondents herein were furnished with or had actually received a copy of the order dated 05.03.2024. In the absence of any material demonstrating such receipt or communication of the order by them, the said grievance status cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of their knowledge of the order for the purpose of computing limitation…”.
Advocate Khagesh B. Jha appeared for the respondent.
A complaint was filed on February 23, 2024 before the Child Welfare Committee, District-South, under Section 29(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, by students of Apeejay School alleging that fee-defaulting students were segregated during the annual examinations, sent to the auditorium, threatened with denial of permission to appear for NEET, given notebook pages instead of official answer sheets, and subjected to a reduced examination duration accompanied by lectures and intimidation, with question papers and answer sheets subsequently confiscated. The CWC, noting that the students had eventually been permitted to appear for their examinations, dismissed the complaint on 05.03.2024 as requiring no further intervention.
Aggrieved students filed an appeal before the ASJ-06 (POCSO), Saket Courts, along with an application to condone a 125-day delay, which the Sessions Court allowed on June 25, 2025, holding the appeal to have been filed within the prescribed thirty-day period once the date of knowledge was correctly reckoned. The school challenged this order before the High Court under Section 101(5) read with Section 103(2) of the JJ Act.
Despite repeated opportunities, the school did not appear to argue the matter, and the Court, applying the principle in Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720., declined to continue the interim stay further and proceeded to decide the appeal on the existing record.
The Court noted that the respondents were found to have obtained a copy of the order only on August 02, 2024, through the school's own reply to the DCPCR enclosing it, following which affidavits were executed on August 06, 2024 and the appeal filed through the e-portal on August 14, 2024. No material was placed by the school to show earlier service of the order.
Finding no infirmity in the Sessions Court's order, the High Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, along with all pending applications.
Cause Title: Apeejay School, Saket v. Naya Samaj Parents Association and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7201)
Appearances:
Appellant: None appeared.
Respondent: Khagesh B. Jha, Shikha Sharma Bagga and Shivani, Advocates.