Karnataka High Court
Sangeetha Preuniversity College, vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 October, 2009
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
NATAKA~ InCUIT BENCH AT GULE fe oo 8 the g ee : ba in Cc a CRDER he petitioner is a Pre-Univer rsity College * Managed by SriLeal Bahaddius- Shastri Be id lecation Society, Bidar. A show cause. notice was issued ty the ist respondent call ing xpont the - peti ne itioner -
college as to why the re CCORT ~ granted "bed should not be cancelled and the salary grant': should not be stopped ,
3. sé under Section 39 read with, Secuion. G2 of the Karnetaka Education Act, 1982. (or short the sent a replies ¢ io the sald notice. < wea ony ate ome gob Pees gepatby * ree % recommended for vithdreawal of sap :
oo ead het fet apliual ~efennit prgrend Aina fe Stutt Fra) oe ' os xs Foal fooler ay Mat Oy 4 % "hey ied sipasaat ran Fauch spas segierd Sane?
BY ad abet?
ay wet aA ed panned 'yh sbeonet us Fai doa Calg pet i: eet Baal aS Pty Swe! waned Sawa?
adoeet 28 4 detailed re € En fled 2 wer [ias +s pebtior 7 ire AL ¢ z in Cyove©rny Scat! Eee eb < ih wily ignored bry ariv- judicial or quasi-judicial authority, more '80, "when. ine same is amenable to further chal pal requirement of indicat ing reasons in such ¢ or been judicially recognized aa impera dive. 'REASOTL 1S pga Fegeenye? F af i x fit SRL ESE =P 'pem g . 4 . ¥ be gk the heart beat of ev CEY conclusion and with aut ie 2 CESS same, th becowe iifele OTHERS -ye. JA! of UNION. OF INDIA - feast fesse » a :
ae jot pe boi ¢ "
es % ey Prong AN he oul me farther avenge of
8. As submitted by the learned Genersimeat ., Advocate, tre respondents have ASSI£ n ed ee casOns as to why gnitions tuave been wit! draw nin 32.7.2009 which _discles S08 'tthe. reasons for ty of the order rivet Be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order itself and it carnet be reasons in tb enape of 9 the reasons so mentioned and cannot be 7 supplemented by fresh _Teasons in the: shape of affidavit © or.. otherwise: : Otherwise, an order bad in the beg giiming may, by the time it it. come es s to 'court on"
account of a chal lenge; get valid: ated by additional groutids later brought cut." 'se fron ac of the view' that the. 1s respondent has gee ety ie % reconsider the me atte oo Ut, writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly. allowed in part. The order at né miatier is remitted back to the 1s res pondent for ve at ns qyitk. Tews ariel fen #Eee accordance with law and in the ugh oc: the observations made above. No costs. Stats £ aS SF So, 1 fw Bet Leg