MP High Court Declines To Quash FIR Against Preschool Director Booked For Violating Order To Disclose Book Prices, Sellers On Website

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against the Director of Kangaroo Kids International Preschool, accused of disobeying a Collector's orders to disclose details of preschool books, their prices and particulars of sellers to ensure transparency and curb the arbitrary sale of educational material.

While dismissing the writ petition filed by Kangaroo Kids International Preschool, the bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed that the school's defence, that its website was controlled by the franchisor's third party website developer and therefore the petitioners were unable to make the disclosure mandated by the Collector was "wholly vague, evasive, and misconceived".

The bench observed;

"Merely because the petitioners are functioning as franchisees does not absolve them of their statutory and regulatory obligations qua the institution being operated by them. The students are admitted in the institution managed by the petitioners, and all educational activities are being carried out under their supervision and administration. Therefore, compliance with lawful directions issued by the competent authorities cannot be avoided by shifting responsibility upon the alleged developer/operator of the website".

The petition was filed by the Preschool and Palakk Academy of Learning Private Limited, seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the State authorities from interfering with the academic functioning of the school, including its prescribed curriculum, teaching methodology and use of licensed study material.

The petitioner also sought the quashing of the show-cause notice of March 26, 2026, along with consequential proceedings, including an FIR registered against the Director of the institution under Section 223(a) of BNSS, relating to disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Petitioner No. 1, the Kangaroo Preschool, was established in 215 and Petitioner No. 2, Palakk Academy, is the company which owner and operates the Preschool. The petition challenged the action of the authorities in registering an FIR.

Per the petitioners, a show cause notice of March 26, 2026, was issued alleging non-compliance with the Collector's directions. The petitioner claimed that they had submitted a detailed reply on March 27, 2026, explaining their position, yet the authorities mechanically proceeded to register the FIR on March 30, 2026, without considering their explanation.

It was further argued that the petitioner institution merely functioned as a franchise unit of Kangaroo Kids International Preschool and did not own or operate any independent website.

Counsel argued that a common website for all franchise institutions was created, operated, and exclusively controlled by Lighthouse Learning Private Limited, which also held copyright over the website. Consequently, the petitioner claimed they had no authority over the operation, management or content of the website.

The petitioner also argued that as a franchisee, their role was limited to implementing the curriculum prescribed by the franchisor with no involvement in the publication, printing, pricing or sale of educational material.

Rejecting these submissions, the court noted that the Collector's directions were aimed at ensuring transparency regarding preschool books and sellers. The court found that the petitioners had failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation demonstrating compliance with those directions.

The court emphasised, "The entire defence of the petitioners rests upon the plea that the website of the school is under the control of the developer of website and the petitioners have no authority over the same. Such explanation, in the considered opinion of this Court, is wholly vague, evasive, and misconceived".

The court further held that merely functioning as franchisees did not absolve the petitioners of their statutory obligations towards the institute being run by them. Since students were admitted to the institute managed by the petitioners and all educational activities were carried out under their supervision, compliance with lawful directions issued by competent authorities could not be avoided by shifting responsibility to the website developer operator

The court highlighted, "The contention that the developers or operators of the website possess exclusive rights and, therefore, the petitioners were incapable of making disclosures, is also devoid of substance. The reply submitted by the petitioners does not indicate any concrete steps having been taken for compliance of the directions issued by the Collector. The explanation furnished is thus nothing but an attempt to evade responsibility".

While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court noted that no exceptional circumstances were found in the present matter and therefore, there was no need for interference. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Kangaroo Kids International Pre School v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-13805-2026

For Petitioner: Advocate Tej Singh Mahadik

For State: Government Advocate Dharmendra Nayak

Click here to read/download the Order