Karnataka High Court
Sundarama Krishnamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NOS.1555-1556 OF 2017 (EDN-REG-P)
BETWEEN
1. SUNDARAMA KRISHNAMURTHY
EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST
AN EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
INDIAN TRUST ACT
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
"VAGDEVI VILAS"
SURVEY NOS. 77/4 AND 77/5
MUNEKOLALU, MARATHAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 037
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING TRUSTEE
SRI. K. HARISH
S/O. LATE G.S. KRISHNAMURTHY
2. VAGDEVI VILAS SCHOOL
SURVEY NOS.77/4 & 77/5
MUNEKOLALU, MARATHAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 037
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MAHESHA B., ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY & SECONDARY)
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF URDU & OTHER LINGUISTIC
MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
SOUTHERN ZONE-04,
TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
K.R. PURAM,
BENGALURU-560 006. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG
WITH SRI.V.SREENIDHI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
****
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the High
Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ
Petition Nos.7411-12/2016 dated 16/1/17.
These appeals coming on for Orders this day, the Chief
Justice, delivered the following:
-3-
JUDGMENT
The appellants in these appeals are writ petitioners before the Hon'ble Single Judge. They run Educational Institutions and claim that they are either linguistic or religious minority institutions.
2. The petitioners challenged the directions issued by the State Government to admit students under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short "the RTE Act").
3. The Hon'ble Single Judge, disposed of the writ petitions, directing the writ petitioners to make a representation to the authorities for declaration of their status. Till such time, it was directed to give admission to the extent of 25% per centum of the total strength by admitting the students recommended by the respective government under the RTE Act.
-4-
4. We have heard Mr.B.Mahesha, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr.A.S.Ponnanna, learned additional advocate general appearing for the State respondents.
5. The status of a party cannot be decided by the Court, as it involves factual determinations.
6. We feel that when there is a National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, constituted under the statute, the said authority must determine the status of the parties. We, therefore, grant liberty to the individual school authorities to make their individual representation to the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, seeking for declaration of their status, be it linguistic or religious. Such representation shall be filed within four weeks from today.
7. If such representation is made, the said Commission shall give an opportunity of hearing to all concerned in the -5- matter and decide the case, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
8. We request the Commission to determine the cases of the institutions, who submit their representations, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of submission of such representations.
9. We are empowering the Commission to decide the minority status, as we do not find any available authorities to determine the status of the minority institutions under the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004.
10. Till such time, the operation of the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge shall remain stayed.
11. The Government of Karnataka shall not insist upon admission of 25% per centum of the total strength of the -6- students, as recommended by them under the RTE Act, insofar as the appellants - institutions are concerned.
12. With the above observations, these writ appeals are disposed of, by modifying the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge, as aforesaid.
13. In view of disposal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, also, disposed of.
14. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB