Apeejay School, Saket vs Naya Samaj Parents Association And Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 21.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 31.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010422322025
+ CRL.A. 958/2025 and CRL.M.As. 19746/2025, 19748/2025,
CRL.M.A. 38197/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25887/2026
APEEJAY SCHOOL, SAKET .....Appellant
Through: None.
Versus
NAYA SAMAJ PARENTS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Ms. Shikha
Sharma Bagga and Ms. Shivani,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 101(5) read
with Section 103(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 (the JJ Act) by the respondent/school in
Crl. Appeal No. 283/2024 on the file of the ASJ-06 (POCSO
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 1 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
Act), South East district, Saket Court, New Delhi, aggrieved by
the order dated 25.06.2025 by which the application for
condonation of delay of 125 days in filing the appeal was
allowed. The said appeal was filed against the order dated
05.03.2024 in Complaint bearing no.CWC/LN/2023-24/1016on
the file of the Child Welfare Committee, District-South (the
CWC).
2. Complaint bearing no. CWC/LN/2023-24/1016 was
filed on 23.02.2024 by some students of the appellant/school
under Section 29 (2) of the JJ Act. As per complaint, the school
subjected fee defaulting students to discriminatory treatment
during the annual examination. The students were segregated
from other students, sent to the auditorium, threatened that they
would not be permitted to appear for NEET exam, and denied
official answer sheets and were made to use pages from
notebooks as answer sheet. It was also alleged that 20 to 30
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 2 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
minutes was reduced from the stipulated two hour examination
duration, while the first half hour was spent in lectures and
intimidation. The school also confiscated the question papers
and answer sheets. The students claimed severe trauma and fear
regarding their academic future. The CWC vide order dated
05.03.2024 held that on 04.03.2024, the parents appearing
before the CWC confirmed that the children were thereafter
permitted to appear for their examinations and hence dismissed
the complaint as no further intervention was required in the
matter. Aggrieved by the said order, the students filed Criminal
Appeal no. 283/2024 along with an application to condone the
delay of 125 days in filing the appeal. The appellate court
accepted the reasons given in the application for condonation of
delay and held that the appeal had, in fact, been filed within the
statutorily prescribed period of 30 days. Aggrieved, the present
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 3 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
appeal has been preferred by the school, the respondent in the
aforesaid Complaint.
3. In the appeal memorandum, it is inter alia contended
that the appellate court erred in condoning the delay without
applying the statutory test provided in the proviso to Section
101(1) of the JJ Act, which permits an appeal to be filed after
thirty days upon satisfaction that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. The appellate
court failed to determine the actual period of delay, which, as
per the dates relied upon by the parties, is 148 days, although
condonation of only 125 days was sought, leaving 23 days
unexplained. Even assuming that the appellants therein acquired
knowledge of the order dated 05.03.2024 only on 02.08.2024,
they filed the appeal only on 30.08.2024, despite having their
affidavits verified on 06.08.2024, and have furnished no
explanation for the intervening period. It was further contended
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 4 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
that the appellate court failed to properly evaluate the
explanation given by the appellants therein in the light of the
contemporaneous record, particularly the grievance status dated
20.06.2024 filed by one of the parents, wherein their knowledge
of the disposal of the complaint was recorded, which materially
contradicts the assertion that they came to know of the order
only on 02.08.2024.
4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, there was
no representation for the appellant/School. As per order dated
11.07.2025, the sessions court has been directed not to proceed
with the appeal. On 09.12.2025, the interim order was directed
to be continued. Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing on
several dates. However, the appellant was not ready to argue the
matter. The stay order continued despite the objection raised by
the respondents herein. Hence, in these circumstances, this court
is not inclined to continue the interim stay granted or adjourn the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 5 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
appeal. In the light of the dictum in Bani Singh & Ors. v. State
of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720, this Court is proceeding to consider
the matter on merits after going through the entire records in this
case.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
herein submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this Court.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgement calling for interference by this Court.
8. The proviso to Section 101 of the JJ Act confers upon
the appellate court, the power to entertain an appeal even after
the expiry of the prescribed period of thirty days, provided the
appellant satisfies the Court that he or she was prevented by
sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the stipulated
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 6 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
period. The primary issue that, therefore, arises for
determination in the present matter is whether the respondents
herein had demonstrated sufficient cause so as to condone the
delay occasioned in preferring the appeal beyond the statutorily
prescribed period of thirty days.
9. The Apex Court, in Maniben Devraj Shah v.
Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157,
while elucidating the expression “ sufficient cause ”, held that
even though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to
be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the courts can neither
become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has
acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under
challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of
litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression
“ sufficient cause ” would get in the factual matrix of a given case
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 7 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If
the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of
the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack
bona fides , then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand,
the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted
or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it
would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the
delay.
10. Coming to the case on hand, the order was passed by
the CWC on 05.03.2024. A perusal of the materials on record
reveal that the copy of the order was received by the respondents
herein on 02.08.2024, the affidavits along with the appeal were
executed by the parties on 06.08.2024, and the appeal was
thereafter filed through the e-portal on 14.08.2024. The appeal
was received by the appellate court on 31.08.2024.The reason
stated by the respondents herein for the delay is that, despite
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 8 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
their best efforts, they did not receive a copy of the order dated
05.03.2024 passed by the CWC within a reasonable time.
According to them, they came to know of and obtained a copy of
the said order only through the reply furnished by the
appellant/school to the DCPCR on 07.06.2024. In the said reply,
particularly para no. 1, the appellant/school stated that the matter
had been closed by the CWC vide order dated 05.03.2024 and
enclosed a copy of the said order.
11. The appellant herein contends that 02.08.2024
cannot be treated as the date from which the period for limitation
commenced, as the respondents were well aware of the disposal
of the complaint by the CWC vide order dated 05.03.2024 even
prior thereto. In support of this contention, reliance has been
placed upon the grievance status wherein, on 20.06.2024, one
Harish Chaudhary, a parent of one of the students, made a
remark under the heading “Citizen Remarks”, thus: “ Application
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 9 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
disposed of without providing the final order or action taken
report. Interim order attached which was provided by me during
complaint filed. Please open the case again .” According to the
appellant/school, the aforesaid remark demonstrates that the
respondents were well aware, at least by 20.06.2024, that the
complaint before the CWC had been disposed of. It was,
therefore, contended that the respondents could not claim
02.08.2024 as the date of knowledge for computing the period of
limitation.
12. Here it would be pertinent to refer to the dictum in
D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India, (2003) 6 SCC 186
wherein it has been held by the Apex court, that the words “ the
date of that order ”, mean and must be construed as meaning the
date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive, of
the order sought to be reviewed. This is so because an order may
be passed without the knowledge of anyone except its author. It
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 10 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
may be kept in the file and consigned to the record room or the
file may lie unattended, unwittingly or by carelessness. In either
case, the remedy against the order would be lost by limitation
though the person aggrieved or affected does not even know
what order has been passed. Such an interpretation cannot be
countenanced. A person aggrieved cannot be expected to
exercise the right of review conferred by the provision unless the
order is communicated to or is known to him either actually or
constructively.
13. 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 11 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
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.
In addition to that, the appellant herein has failed to show any
material(s) establishing the order dated 05.03.2024 of the CWC
was served on the respondents much earlier.
14. Further, according to the appellant, 31.08.2024 is the
date on which the appeal was filed before the Sessions Court,
though the respondents received the order on 02.08.2024. Hence,
there is an unexplained delay of 23 days. This contention is also
without merit as the impugned order says that the appeal was
filed through e-portal on 14.08.2024 and was received by the
Court on 31.08.2024.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 12 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no infirmity in
the impugned order calling for an interference by this Court.
16. In the result, the appeal sans merit, stands dismissed.
17. Application(s), if any, pending, shall also stand
closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 31, 2026
rs/ p’ma
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 958/2025 Page 13 of 13
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
15:37:00