Jnana Karanji Charitable Trust vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Jnana Karanji Charitable Trust vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2010

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 14"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2()}'()

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J    '

WRIT PETITION N0.344 013*» 2093   

BETWEEN

1.

{BY SR1.   ADVS}

JNANA KARANJI 'CF£ARITABLE--«f_FRUS'F
WITH ITS RI:GIs"I'ERE~D O.Ff'FIvCE'A'T, PREMISES
NO 15--3--363, MRUTPIYIJD~Eg}AYA"NAGP.R--~
MANNALI ROAD, B'iDAI~:{ 585.403 1  
REPRESENTED BY ITS'PRESIDEN_'I7§
sRI.sA:-JGAIiiI2AT HE1'¢1AS}~IE'fTTY .

     -   ...PETITIONER

AND 

1.

9""  3

TH F3"-S'I'ATE"'OF: .I:IixIiI~;ATAKA
STATE ~BDUC'AT1'ON 'RESEARCH AND

I ._§ TRAINING C ENTRE, BSK III STAGE

 'I00 FEET RINBROAD, HOSAKERE/HALLI
I BANGAL-.ORE--85

 [REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

?""%«NAfTIOI§AiL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION
 A BTATUTORY BODY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

HANSA BHAVAN, WING II
NEW DELHI 110 002

C 'C "~_.REP BY ITS CHAIRPERSON

 



   Strike I.dlO'W1'1V the impugned Clause 5.1.1

ix)

SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL
COUNCIL

FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION

IST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING.

HMT POST, BANGALORE31

REP BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR

La)

{BY SRI M KUMAR. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1} "  '  '

THIS WRIT PE3'FITION IS FIL13jD'UND_ER 
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION:.4oI£i"INDIA PRAYfII'»?C}.T-C)

STRUCK DOWN THE IMPUCNED-ICLAUSE' 5.i;1 'AND 5.1.2 I
UNDER CAPTION I_NFRAS_TRLICT[__JRE ' ~ AS
ANNEXURE H1 IN 'I1R"E..'1NO'RMse--- AND, STANDARDS FOR
ELEMENTARY TEACHER. a_E:)I.ICAT_'ION_ PROGRAMME
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE H AS tINC.OI.:'STI~=1*UTIOI\IAL AND
VIOLATIVE oE4.jARf1"IQfI;E"1=:I. OFQTHE CONSTITUTION OF

This petiitéfon   Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Groulp'thAi's» day,"th'c.Court"n1ade the following:

. I    E R

_ The Cpeti'tiOnVerAAha's~*'sought for the following reliefs:

 under Caption infrastructure
  as Annexure--H1 in the Norms
 'an:dC Standards for Elementary Teacher
R' vV__C*Education Programme produced at

AnneXure~»H as unconstitutional and

 



 thhlliperniiissionlllo'f"'The National Council For Teacher

    1993 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'

 framedc' thereunder. The petitioner makes an

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.

2. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorarioi=._i".__
any other appropriate writ or  
direction, quashing the order 

No.F.s.R.o/NCTE/Ref.2oo*22o8,filflsstig    

dated 07/112,200? "r~i§asseci.  li?.'Ei€'W'?l1*V<V1 
respondent pp-Iioducéed'  ,Ar1'n_eXure' »\_/Q  9

2. The petitioner 'allci:arit'ai3lelp:'Tta§:.registered with the noble of activities including establishing The said Trust is Primary and other institutiolns.V also contemplated of starting Course, which would require for~..__brevitjZ} dunder the National Council and Rules . petitioneralso questions certain provisions of the Norms for Elementary Teacher Education required infrastructure, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'G'. The permission is rejected on_.._t_hree counts:

1. The management has not__shifted_'lthe"

to its permanent building».:'within' which ends on 29.112907. " V V i ' T

2. The present building aireiaiis onl'y.#:i88:".sq'fv;mts. And it is not hvaving requ.i'redl"-numblerr'-of-'class rooms and laboratori.e--s_. " V' 3, Multipurpose hall"is:not-- "

4. Hence was accorded to the institution petitioner was also advised th.at'l'i§1e..v_can=prefer an appeal to the appellate authorityunder. of the Act. The petitioner is qupeistioening tliedslaidViwithdrawal of the recognition. The Progranime leading to D.Ed degree. The petitioner is seriously aggrieved by Clause--5 which would relate to the facilities in the nature of infrastructure an"d__other allied things. p

5. I have perused the papersllanld 1 haV7eeVV..heard; learned Counsel for the State: .

8. Apparently, that the institution norms which are in the of the building, the ini'raSvitfraVet'tt.rev_v which are in the natured-of l'aboratorjies"and. class rooms. ' pp thepcasevﬂlonl hand, it is to be noticed that the of the National Council Visited the spot and that the petitioner did not possess the 1'equired. infrastructure. Hence proposed to withdraw the recognition.

nbemsaid to be unconstitutional which would warrant

8. Insofar as the challenge to the provisions of Clause 5 of the said Norms is concerned, E am of the view that a perusal of the writ petition does not indicate the petitioner proposes to chal1en»ge..tphe on Ru the ground that it violates Constitution of India the very purpose of in's§stingl'on."facilities-asstated in the said Clause would area of class rooms shall Intrs.

ii) provision for not less than _ , pp class' roolrnsland one multipurpose hall. Laboratories' for conducting instructional ' for approved intake of 100 students. of the view that the said provisions cannot Peiition stands disposed of accordingly. Mr. M.KuIz3ar, iearned Government * permitted to file his memo of f4_('_)1.1I"'.,V ' weeks.

JT/~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court