Karnataka High Court
Sri Maruthi Educational Trust (Regd.) vs Appellate Authority & Commissioner on 11 December, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.48306 OF 2013 (EDN-REG-P)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Maruthi Educational Trust (Registered),
Near KSRTC Depot,
Ramanagar Road,
Kanakapura Town,
Kanakapura - 562 117,
Ramanagara District,
Represented by its Secretary,
Smt. K.A.Vinoda.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. M. Krishnappa, Advocate)
AND:
1. Appellate Authority and
Commissioner for Public
Instructions,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Director (Primary Education),
O/o Commissioner of Public Instructions,
2
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Deputy Director of Public
Instructions,
Ramanagara District,
Ramanagar - 562 159.
4. Block Education Officer,
Kanakapura, Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District - 562 117.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Ashwathappa, Additional Government Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated 7.10.2013, made appeal No.25/2013, by the first
respondent as at Annexure-N and allow the said Appeal
No.25/2013, on the file of the first respondent and direct the
respondents to consider and grant renewal and approval of
recognition from academic year 2006-2007 in favour of
petitioner for running the school from 1st to 5th standard in
Kannada Medium.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
3
ORDER
The petition coming on for orders regarding compliance with the office objections, as the matter could be disposed of on merits, the same is considered for final disposal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a registered educational Trust having been registered in the year 2002. It is engaged in imparting education to students in rural areas of Kanakapura, Ramanagara District. It has established a school under the name and style of S.G.M.Convent during the year 2003-2004. It was granted approval to run a school in Kannada medium from 1st standard to 5th Standard and had been granted recognition from time to time. It is stated to be an unaided school.
During the year 2007, the petitioner had sought renewal of recognition. However, on the ground that the institution had violated the undertaking to impart teaching in Kannada medium and therefore had violated the language policy of the State 4 Government, the recognition was denied. The petitioner had learnt that the order has been issued on 12.4.2007. The petitioner having learnt of the State Government having issued an order dated 12.4.2007, whereby a voluntary Scheme, under which renewal of approval could be sought by paying a penalty of Rs.25,000/- in respect of schools situated in rural areas and Rs.1,00,000/- if it is within the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Rs.50,000/- in respect of the schools situated in other areas. Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation in the belief that it fell within the category, which was required to pay penalty of Rs.25,000/- if it was to avail the benefit of the Scheme.
3. The second respondent did inform that the petitioner's application in that regard was under consideration. The petitioner's request however had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was, in fact, liable to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- as it would come within the jurisdiction of 5 Kanakapura town and not Kanakapura rural area and the proposal had been rejected.
It is only recently that the petitioner had learnt of this circumstance and the last date for payment of the fee having long expired, it thereafter had approached the second respondent seeking clarification. The petitioner, in fact, deposited the difference amount of fine along with an affidavit dated 28.5.2013 explaining the circumstances and undertaking that it would impart education in Kannada Medium and not in English medium. The affidavit was also accompanied by a representation and a challan for having remitted the amount of difference. The second respondent had issued a letter directing the Block Education Officer to issue an endorsement rejecting the request for renewal inspite of deposit of the amount as aforesaid.
It is the case of the petitioner that there is arbitrary treatment in this regard, as there is a precedent of the respondents having granted renewal of recognition in identical 6 circumstances, in respect of another institution, namely, one Adarsha Vidya Mandiram.
4. The petitioner is said to have approached this court by way of a writ petition in WP 22864/2013 challenging the order dated 31.5.2013 rejecting the request of the petitioner. This court, by its order dated 11.6.2013, disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The petitioner did file an appeal. The appellate authority however, has rejected the appeal. It is in that background that the present petition is filed claiming that this court in WP 31015/2012 dated 28.9.2012, in identical circumstances, has allowed the claim of yet another petitioner and has permitted the payment of the penal fee even after a delay of several years. It is therefore prayed that the petitioner's case for renewal of recognition be considered in the light of the fine having been deposited as aforesaid.
7
5. The learned Government Advocate seeks time to obtain instructions and would submit that the prayer of the petitioner is sought after much delay and there is no warrant for consideration of such a prayer at this point of time and admittedly, the deposit of the fine in instalments is spread over several years and cannot be accepted. However, the learned Government Pleader is not in a position to point out the prejudice that would be caused either to the State or the public in any manner, by condoning the delay in depositing such fine and permitting the petitioner to impart education in the Kannada medium. The only other circumstance that would be apparent is that if the State could have benefitted by the fine that was to be paid in time, the petitioner has enjoyed the benefit that would accrue by withholding such fine imposed over a period of time. Therefore, if the initial deposit was made on 15.6.2007, therefore, the petitioner would be obliged to pay interest on the delayed payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/- from 15.6.2007 till the date on which the balance was deposited, 8 namely, on 27.5.2013, at 10% per annum and on such deposit, the respondent shall be obliged to renew the recognition of the petitioner - institution, if everything else is in order.
The learned Government Pleader would point out that the benefit granted should be restricted to the petitioner, for otherwise it is possible that other institutions would claim this to be a precedent. It is made clear that the benefit granted under this order is restricted to the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv