Karnataka High Court
Rukmini Educational Charitable Trust vs State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1004
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NOs.31778-31779/2014(EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. RUKUMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST
O/A, NO."A" WING, 11
O SHAUGNESSY RAOD,
BANGALORE - 560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHARIMAN
MR. P.SHYAMA RAJU
S/O LATE NARASARAJU
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
(BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN IS NOT CLAIM)
2. REVA INSTUTUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
AND MANAGEMENT
KATTIGNEHALLI, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE - 560 064
REPRESENTED BYITS DEAN
DR M DHANAMJAY
S.O MR. BOJJI RAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER &
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
O/AT 7TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING
JANPATH, NEW DELSHI - 110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2
3. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
"JNANA SANGAMA",
BELGAUM - 590 018.
4. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 18
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(AMENDED CAUSE TITEL BY O/D 21.07.2014)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. SONA BAIDGER, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. T S VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.06.2014 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT REJECTING FOR EXTENSION OF
APPROVAL FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2014-15 TO 2ND
PETITIONER INSTITUTION, AS HIGHLY ARBITRAY, ILLEGAL
AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 19(1)(G) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VIDE ANNEXURE - A.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The first petitioner an Educational Trust and the 2nd petitioner the College run by the first petitioner-Trust, had a grievance and therefore they had knocked at the doors of this Court with the following prayers:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the communication bearing No.South-West/1-2185073701/2014/LOR dated 10.06.2014 issued by the 2nd 3 respondent rejecting for extension of approval for the academic year 2014-15 to 2nd petitioner institution, as highly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India (Annexure-A).
b) Issue a writ of in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order directions directing the 2nd Respondent to grant approval to the 2nd Petitioner for the academic year 2014-15 onwards.
bb) writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the communication/order dated 03.07.2014 issued by Respondent to 2nd Petitioner stating no-extension of approval for academic year 2014-15 in communication bearing No.AICTE/AB/SWRO/PID-1-6246421, as the same is highly arbitrary illegal and in gross violation of principals of natural justice.
c) Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter."
2. This Court vide interim order dated 21.07.2014 had made some arrangement keeping in view the interest of the students involved, the relevant text of which reads as under:
" Therefore keeping all these aspects in view, the petitioners are permitted to make admission with intake of 120 students of "Computer Science and Engineering" for the academic year 2014-15. While making such admission, the petitioners shall allow 45% of the seats to the KEA to be filled by them and 30% of the seats to be filled by Comed-K and the remaining seats to be 4 filled by the petitioners institutions. The admissions made would however remain subject to the result of the petitions. Petitioners institutions as well as the KEA and the Comed-K shall intimate the students that the admissions are being made pursuant to the interim orders of this Court and the admissions would remain subject to the same and that there is likelihood of such candidates be distributed to other colleges if ultimately the petitioners fail in these petitions.
Though the issue had arisen in the context of the intake relating to Computer Science and Engineering, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners points out that by the withdrawal order the admission to all courses conducted by the petitioners institutions has been withdrawn. In that regard it is made clear that in respect of the other courses the intake as permitted by the Government for the academic year 2013-14 shall be permitted and the proportion of seat sharing and the manner of admission and indication to the students shall remain in the same manner."
3. After the filing of the writ petitions, there has been some development that has been reflected in the eleven documents, copies of which are produced by the petitioners by a memo dated 31.10.2018 and thus this development has rendered the petitions infructuous. However, to make the relief complete, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits, a small prayer of the petitioners needs to be granted by quashing the impugned orders at Annexures- A and Q dated 10.06.2014 and 5 03.07.2014 respectively. However, the prayer for quashing of these orders pales into insignificance in view of what emerges collectively from the said eleven documents produced along with the memo.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/