Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Sree Beereshwara Education Trust (R) vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 5 March, 2013

Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

Bench: D V Shylendra Kumar

                             -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
          CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
             Dated this the 5th day of March, 2013

                          BEFORE:

   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR

           Writ Petition No.100677 of 2013 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

SREE BEERESHWARA
EDUCATION TRUST (R)
NO.126, AGASANALA, INDI TALUK
BIJAPU DISTRICT,
REPT. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
S.V. SINGREGOWDA
S/O VASANTHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

                                          ...     PETITIONER

            [S V SINGREGOWDA - PARTY-IN-PERSON]

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
   PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
   M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

2. THE DIRECTOR
   DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
   OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
   RODDHA ROAD,
   DHARWAD.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
   PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                             -2-

  BIJAPUR DISTRICT,
  BIJAPUR.

4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
   CHADACHANA ZONE,
   INDI TALUK, BIJAPUR DISTRICT,
   BIJAPUR.

5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
   BIJAPUR RURAL DIVISION,
   BIJAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
                                        ...   RESPONDENTS


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER
THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TRUST DATED
29.11.2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-E FOR ACCORD PERMISSION TO
RUN THE INSTITUTIONS IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER'S TRUST
AND ALSO FOR RENEWAL OF RECOGNIZANCE, APPROVAL,
APPROVAL OF GRANT-IN-AID FOR PETITIONER'S INSTITUTIONS AS
PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4
AND 5 AS PER ANNEXURE-H, H(1) TO H(6) RESPECTIVELY AND
ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

The writ petitioner claiming to be an educational trust registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1921 with an object of establishing institutions, is before this Court in the context of certain disputes between the present management of the Trust and a society by name Sree -3- Beereshwara Shilpa Education Society and has been in litigation for quite sometime.

2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved that certain interim order passed on 15.02.2013 at Annexure-'G' and also the order dated 29.11.2012 at Annexure-'D' passed by the first respondent - State Government in Appeal No.57/2012 are all not obeyed or given effect to, by the other respondents. In this background, the petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

" 1. Issue writ in nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.3 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner trust dated 29.11.2012 as per Annexure-E for accord permission to run the institutions in the name of petitioner's trust and also for renewal of recognizance, approval, of grant- in-aid for petitioner's institutions as per the recommendations made by the respondent No.4 and 5 as per Annexure-H, H(1) to H(6) respectively.

2. Issue writ in nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to comply the directions issued by the 1st respondent dated 15.02.2013 as per Annexure-G as per the interim order passed by the 1st respondent in appeal No.57/2012 dated 29.11.2012 as per Annexure-D.

3. Pass such other order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit on the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

3. The writ petitioner has placed various contentions particularly the history of the Trust, its earlier activities and the disputes between some of the Trustees and persons in management of society Beereshwar Shilpa Education Society.

4. The petitioner Trust is represented by its Administrator Sri Singregowda, who has appeared in person and submits that the petitioner is left high and dry -5- in order to seek relief; that inspite of orders in favour of the Trust passed by the first respondent, it is not given effect to and therefore is before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus.

5. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the contentions urged, for examination, as a writ of mandamus cannot be issued by this Court to direct one respondent to obey the order passed by its superior authority.

6. If an order is passed by a statutory functionary or an administrative authority and certain directions issued to subordinates or persons functioning under the authority who has passed the order, it is for the authority to ensure its implementation and necessary action, and interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction, in my considered opinion, is not the proper course of remedy to be followed nor a writ of mandamus can lie for such -6- purpose. An order passed in the context of lis between two warring sections and any interim order, ordered by statutory authority or administrative authority, in the context of such disputes between the parties, directing its subordinates or lower ranking officials to act in a particular manner cannot be elevated to the status of the statutory provisions for issuing of writ of mandamus by this Court.

7. It is for this reason, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the petitioner elsewhere, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE swk