Karnataka High Court
Kolar District Private Educational vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2015
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.7044/2015 (EDN- REG-P)
BETWEEN:
KOLAR DISTRICT PRIVATE
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
ASSOCIATION (R), KOLAR
OFFICE AT AMVS EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS, GANDHINAGAR
KOLAR-563 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT S. MUNIYAPPA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHUPATHY K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY &
SECONDARY EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
2
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR-563 101. ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. NAGARAJ AGA FOR R-1 TO R-5)
WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 27.10.2014 SUBMITTED TO
THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE W.P.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri K Raghupathy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri D Nagaraj, learned AGA appearing for respondents.
2. Petitioner is seeking for issuance of a mandamus to fourth respondent to consider his representation dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure-A). 3
3. Petitioner has contended that in the year 2014 Baldwin Methodist Educational Society is already running an educational institution at Kolar had submitted a representation to respondents to permit them to run a new institution and on failure to consider the said prayer, they had approached this Court in W.P.No.30994/2014 and in the said writ petition, it was submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate by filing a memo that respondents would not permit any unauthorized schools to come up and would take action against such unauthorized schools and accordingly, placing said memo on record, writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure-B). It is further contended that petitioner has now approached fourth respondent with a representation requesting not to accord any fresh permission to establish any new institution which representation has been forwarded to second respondent by communication dated 30.11.2014 4 (Annexure-C) and contends that circular dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure-D) issued by second respondent inviting applications to run new educational institutions stipulates various conditions required to be followed for establishing new educational institution and authorities are required to follow said circular and as such, representation came to be submitted by petitioner on 02.12.2014 (Annexure-E) to second respondent requesting thereunder not to accord fresh permission to run new educational institution and it was followed by another representation submitted to fifth respondent on 15.12.2014 (Annexure-F) and contends that Baldwin Methodist Education Society which had earlier sought for grant of permission, has once again filed fresh application seeking grant of permission to establish new educational institution which has since been forwarded by fifth respondent to fourth respondent on 24.12.2014 (Annexure-G) and same is said to be under consideration. It is contended by petitioner that respondents ought to have rejected on 5 the ground that application not being in conformity with the circular - Annexure-D and on account of such step not having been taken by respondents, petitioner is said to have submitted one more representation on 27.10.2014 (Annexure-A) requesting the respondents not to accord permission to any institution to establish new institution in violation of the Circular dated 14.11.2014- Annexure-D. Said representation is said to have not been considered by respondents. Hence, petitioner is seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondents to consider its representation dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure-A) and not to grant permission to new educational institutions in violation of circular dated 14.11.2014 -Annexure-D.
4. For issuance of writ of mandamus, petitioner has to establish its right vested and there being either non-consideration of such request by virtue of right vested in the petitioner and/or inaction on the part of respondents to consider such request. In the instant 6 case, petitioner is a consortium of Education Institutions said to have been running various educational institutions in Kolar District. Perusal of said representation dated 27.10.2014 does not even remotely suggest that it is having any right to prevent the State from granting permission for establishing new schools. It is needless to state, that if authorities find that applicant/s are not meeting the eligibility criteria prescribed either under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 or the circulars issued thereunder, they would be at liberty to reject the said application. In the event of any sanction or permission being granted by the authorities contrary to the statutory provision, it would be always subject to judicial review.
With this observation, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *sp