Karnataka High Court
Srinivasa Education Trust vs State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.29687/2015 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRINIVASA EDUCATION TRUST
PEDDPALLI MAIN ROAD,
ORIGAMPET
K.G.F., KOLAR DISTRICT-563121
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PAPI REDDY G, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-01
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
BENGALURU CITY
2. THE COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,
K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-01
BENGALURU CITY.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563121
4. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
K.G.F. CIRCLE, K.G.F.
KOLAR DISTRICT-563121
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I THARANATHA POOJARY, AGV.)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT AT ANN-S ISSUED BY THE R-3 DATED
4.6.2015 AND DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER AT ANN-F DATED 30.6.2010 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS EXISTING AS ON THE
DATE OF THE APPLICATION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 04.06.2015 impugned at Annexure-S to the petition. In that light, the petitioner is seeking that respondent No.3 be directed to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the Regulations which was existing as on 30.06.2010.
2. The petitioner-Trust is running a school under the name and style of "New Carmel School" at Peddapalli Main Road, Oorgaumpet, KGF, has sought permission to start VI to VIII Standard. To consider the said application, the respondents have issued the 3 memorandum dated 04.06.2015 indicating the fee that is required to be paid and calling upon the petitioner to pay the same through the demand draft. The petitioner- institution claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.
3. The respondents have filed their objection statement enclosing thereto the documents relating to the application made by the petitioner-institution and the subsequent developments in that regard as also with regard to a proceedings initiated against the petitioner when there was wall collapse due to defective infrastructure. In order to sustain the claim of the respondents through the objection statement, it is pointed out that though an application had been filed in the year 2010, the petitioner-institution had received the same back and at present the application subsequently submitted is being considered pursuant to the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by this Court and such consideration 4 being subsequent to the issue of notification dated 11.11.2014, the fee as prescribed thereunder has been sought and as such, the petitioner cannot have any grievance.
4. Insofar as the consideration that is being sought is pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.58233/2014 dated 19.12.2014, at that stage, the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of taking into consideration the application that had been made therein claiming that the application was filed on 30.06.2010. However, the documents produced along with the objection statement would disclose that such application had been taken back as per the endorsement indicated in the application itself. Subsequently, on securing benefit of a direction, the consideration has been sought.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would however refer to the document at Annexure-R to contend 5 that the inspection had been conducted and a report had been prepared much earlier and therefore the action should be construed as having been made pursuant to the earlier application which had been filed by the petitioner.
6. Though such contention is put forth, what is necessary to be noticed is that the said document is dated 07.02.2015. Be that as it may, though similar application had been filed, the same had been returned and subsequently it is only on a direction issued by this Court, the application has been resubmitted and the same is being considered. When such application is re-submitted by the petitioner-institution, the fee as fixed and payable at this point is what is required to be paid.
7. Insofar as the other aspects relating to the infrastructure, though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the same would not apply to an existing school, the same need not be gone into at this 6 juncture since the consideration thereof will require to be made only if the action requires such consideration on the application being disposed of and to that extent if the school on that aspect is to be considered as an existing school.
8. For the present, what is evident is that the fee as has been fixed under the notification for considering an application for standards VI to VIII has been indicated to be paid by the impugned memorandum dated 04.06.2015. In that light, I see no error committed by the respondents to interfere with the memorandum which has been issued. If the petitioner desires consideration of the application, the fee as required to be paid shall be paid and thereafter the further consideration shall be made.
7
9. The petition is accordingly disposed of. If the fee as demanded is paid by the petitioner, the consideration of the application shall be made in an expeditious manner, but in any event the application shall be disposed of in accordance with law before 31.03.2016.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms