CWP-17990-2025 (O&M) -1- 117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17990-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 VINAIRA AND OTHERS ..Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Deepjyot Sidhu and Mr. Rajiv Goyal along with parents of petitioners (in-person). Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. Aman Pal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 71. Ms. Gursharan Kaur Mann, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anmol Jeevan Singh Gill, Advocate for the applicant in CM-7475-CWP-2026. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has appeared and stated that he has no instructions to appear in the present case, therefore, he prays for withdrawal of his vakalatnama. 2. This Court appreciates the professional conduct of learned counsel for the petitioners, who appears along with the petitioners in person and prays for withdrawal of his vakalatnama on the ground that he has received the instructions from his clients, who are also appearing before this Court, to withdraw the same. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-17990-2025 (O&M) -2- 3. In view of the prayer made, vakalatnama of learned counsel for the petitioners is withdrawn. 4. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned expulsion letter dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-28) issued by Respondent no. 5 against the petitioners, being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent no. 5 to reinstate the petitioners as regular students of Class VI as Day Scholars and allow them to attend classes without any hindrance. A writ in the nature of mandamus restraining Respondent no.5 from coercively implementing the so-called Reinitialization Policy or compelling students to convert to Day Boarding/Boarding mid-sessions, without due consultation, statutory backing, and infrastructural preparedness and to direct the respondent School to permit the Petitioners to attend regular classes as day scholars with immediate effect without any harassment and exclusion from academic and extra curriculum activities just on the ground of opposing this policy. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 contends that for the relief sought in the present writ petition, the petitioners have already availed the appropriate remedy by instituting a civil suit and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. The petitioners, who are appearing in person, rebuts the same by asserting that the relief claimed in the present writ petition is distinct from the relief sought in the civil suit and, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-17990-2025 (O&M) -3- 7. I have heard the petitioners, who are appearing in person as well as learned counsel for respondents and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 8. A perusal of the file reveals that the relief claimed by the petitioners in the civil suit is substantially identical to the relief sought in the present writ petition. The cause of action and prayer in both proceedings are the same. 9. The prayer in the civil suit is reproduced as under:- “SUIT FOR DECLARATION to the effect that the Letter No. Nil, dated 01.04.2025, issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs wherein it has been alleged that New Curriculum of "Day Boarding" or "Boarder" will be effective from 15.07.2025 i.e. upon the re-opening of the school after the summer break and wherein the plaintiffs have been directed to complete all formalities for the transition into Boarder or Day Boarder status on or before 20.04.2025 to enable the student's continuity in the institution AND the order (if any) of Board of Directors of defendant No.1 wherein it was decided that parents are bound by the Residentialisation Policy, (in the absence of plaintiffs, their parents and representatives) AND the so called Residentialisation Policy (if any) of defendant No.1, are illegal, null and void, against the principles of natural justice, unconstitutional, against the provisions of Right to Education Act, contrary to the Rules and Regulations of State/ Central Government framed for Boarding Schools, have become redundant of its own as the plaintiffs have already been admitted as DAY SCHOLARS in Class-VI of defendant No.1- School, their Status as Day Scholars has also been uploaded on the SKOLARO- online App of defendant No.1, Fees has also MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-17990-2025 (O&M) -4- been charged for first term as Day Scholars, are thus liable to be set aside, AND FOR PERMANENT INJUCTION restraining the defendant No.1 from implementing Letter No. Nil, dated 01.04.2025, issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs wherein it has been alleged that New Curriculum of "Day Boarding" or "Boarder" will be effective from 15.07.2025 i.e. upon the re- opening of the school after the summer break and wherein the plaintiffs have been directed to complete all formalities for the transition into Boarder or Day Boarder status on or before 20.04.2025 to enable the student's continuity in the institution, in any manner AND further restraining the defendant No.1, its employees, teachers, staff members, from misbehaving, manhandling, exploiting, reprimanding, insulting, the plaintiffs, their parents, in the School, in any manner. AND FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION directing the defendants No.2 & 3 to look into the matter and to take action against the defendant No.1 for forcibly implementing the so called Residentialisation Policy only on students of Class-VI of defendant No.1 school, whereas the defendant No.1-school is having other classes from Prep-I to Class-XII, as the alleged Residentialisation Policy is itself illegal, lacks from material infrastructure, basic amenities, arrangements for keeping the plaintffs/ students of Class-VI as BOARDERS OR DAY BOARDERS in their school.” 10. The prayer in the writ petition is also reproduced as under:- “Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned expulsion MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-17990-2025 (O&M) -5- letter dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-28) issued by Respondent no. 5 against the petitioners, being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction AND Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent no. 5 to reinstate the petitioners as regular students of Class VI as Day Scholars and allow them to attend classes without any hindrance; AND Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining Respondent no. 5 from coercively implementing the so-called Reinitialization Policy or compelling students to convert to Day Boarding/Boarding mid-session, without due consultation, statutory backing, and infrastructural preparedness; AND Further during the pendency of the present case Direct the Respondent School to permit the Petitioners to attend regular classes as day scholars with immediate effect without any harassment and exclusion from acedemic and extra curriculum actvities just on the ground of opposing this policy;” 11. A perusal of both the prayer clauses makes it evident that the relief claimed in both the proceedings i.e. civil suit and present writ are substantially identical. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh Vs Union of India and Ors., 1976 INSC 925 has categorically observed that two parallel proceedings pursued by the parties is not permitted and it cannot be allowed to continue at the same time. The relevant para of the same is reproduced as under:- MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-17990-2025 (O&M) -6- “4. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it involved determination of disputed questions of fact. It was also observed that the High Court should not in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction grant relief to the appellant when he had an alternative remedy. After hearing Mr. Sobhagmal Jain on behalf of the appellant, we see no cogent ground to take a view different from that taken by the High Court. There cannot, in our opinion, be any doubt on the point that the extent of purity of the gypsum won by the appellant is a question of fact. It has also been brought to our notice that after the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, the appellant has failed a suit, in which he has agitated the same question which is the subject-matter of the writ petition. In our opinion, the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time.” 13. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. vs. Surinder Singh Banolta, 2006(12) SCC 484 has held as under:- “18. If a candidate or a voter had the knowledge that the elected candidate was disqualified in terms of Section 122 of the Act, he may file an application. The order of eviction may come to the notice of some other person after the election process is over. A situation, thus, may arise where two different proceedings may lie before two different authorities at the instance of two different persons. Two parallel proceedings, it is well settled, cannot be allowed to continue at the same time. A construction of a statute which may lead to such a situation, therefore, must be avoided. It will also lead to an absurdity if two different Tribunals are allowed to come to contradictory decisions.” MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-17990-2025 (O&M) -7- 14. In view of the above referred to judgments and the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that petitioners cannot be permitted to pursue two parallel proceedings seeking the same relief. 15. Since, the petitioners have already availed the remedy before the Civil Court, the present petition stands dismissed. 16. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. July 22nd, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Sahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.