Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sijo Sebastain vs State Of Karnataka on 22 December, 2020
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.15208/2020 (EDN - RES)
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SIJO SEBASTAIN,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SRI.SEBASTIAN P.K.,
R/O 2ND MAIN, C BLOCK,
AECS LAYOUT,
NEAR BROOKEFIELDS,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
2. SMT.AMRUTH JOHN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O SIJO SEBASTIAN,
R/O 2ND MAIN, C BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT,
NEAR BROOKEFIELDS,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
3. SMT.AISHWARYA KRISHNA KUMAR,
AGED 42 YEARS,
W/O KRISHNA KUMAR,
R/O 114 A BLOCK,
MAHAVEER TUSCAN,
BASAVANNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA POST, HOODI,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
4. SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR SUBRAMANIAN,
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O SUBRAMANIAN,
R/O 114 A BLOCK,
MAHAVEER TUSCAN,
2
BASAVANNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA POST, HOODI,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
5. SMT.REHANA ARIEF,
AGED 39 YEARS,
W/O ARIEF RAJA,
R/O A338, MAHAVEER REGAL APARTMENT,
BASAVANAGAR MAIN ROAD, HOODI,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
6. SRI.POLA SUDHIR SHANKAR,
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O POLA SUBRAMANYAM,
R/O 309, A BLOCK,
SMR VINAY GALAXY, HOODI,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
7. SMT.LEENA BHATIA,
W/O PRAVEEN BHATIA
AGED 41 YEARS,
R/O #9, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS EXTENSION,
LAKSHMI LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALU,
MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
8. SRI.PRAVEEN BHATIA,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE MR.C.L.BHATIA,
R/O #9, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS EXTENSION,
LAKSHMI LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALU,
MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
9. SRI.JAYESH KUMAR S.M.,
S/O MADHAVAN N.P.
AGED 44 YEARS,
R/O G22, BLOCK F,
SUMADHURA'S SRINIVASAN,
SEETHARAMPALYA,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
10. SRI.BABY VARGHESE,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O VARGHESE,
R/O DS1, OASIS BREEZE,
6TH MAIN, AECS LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
3
11. SRI.RAHUL UNNIKRISHNAN,
S/O P.K.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI,
AGED 42 YEARS,
R/O FLAT 201, ANS BLOSSOM,
NEAR RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
BROOKEFIELDS, KUNDALAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
12. SMT.ASWATHY RAHUL,
W/O RAHUL UNNIKRISHNAN,
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/O FLAT 201, ANS BLOSSOM,
NEAR RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
BROOKEFIELDS, KUNDALAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
13. SMT.VIJITHA GOONDA,
AGED 40 YEARS,
W/O KIRAN KUMAR GOONDA,
R/O MAHAVEER TUSCAN APARTMENT,
BLOCK A #110, BASAVANAGAR ROAD,
HOODI, BANGALORE - 560 048.
14. SRI.JOE JOSEPH,
S/O P.J.GREGORY,
AGED 39 YEARS,
R/O SLS SQUARE, KUNDALAHALLI,
EPIP PHSE 2, WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE - 560 066.
15. SRI.PIYUSH VIJAYVERGIA,
S/O LATE SHRI R.P.VIJAYVERGIA,
AGED 41 YEARS,
R/O #411, SAI KRUPA HARMONY,
OPPOSITE TO MTB SCHOOL,
MAHADEVAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
16. SMT.NEELAM VIJAY,
AGED 40 YEARS,
W/O PIYUSH VIJAYVERGIA,
R/O #411, SAI KRUPA HARMONY,
OPPOSITE TO MTB SCHOOL,
MAHADEVPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
4
17. SRI.KARTHIK B.,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O BALASUBRAMANIAM R.,
R/O C104, ITTINA AKKALA,
RAJAPALYA, ITPL HOODI ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
18. SMT.SRIVARALAKSHMI R.,
AGED 38 YEARS,
W/O KARTHIK B,
R/O C 104, ITTINA AKKALA,
RAJAPALYA, ITPL HOODI ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
19. SRI.HEMANT MISRA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O P.S.MISRA,
R/O FLAT 3061, SOBHA PALLADIAN,
YAMULUR JUNCTION,
OFF OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
20. SRI.SHILESH KUMAR S K.,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O P N KUMARAN,
R/O #B2, 118, JHANVI CLUSTERS,
6TH MAIN, POSTAL COLONY,
SANJAY NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 094.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.STANLY SAM, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
6TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.641,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
5
NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NEAR - RBI,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
CHAIRPERSON - DISTRICT
LEVEL EDUCATIONAL
REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
KG ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT
REGISTRAR OFFICE,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION
OFFICERS AND REGIONAL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION,
BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT,
KALASIPALYAM,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICE,
SOUTH CIRCLE-4,
GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL COMPOUND,
TRIVENI NAGAR, K.R.PURA,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
6. EURO SCHOOL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL/CHAIRMAN,
EURO SCHOOL WHITEFIELD,
NO.36, 183,
SEETHARAMPALYA,
HOODI ROAD, BEHIND KPS YARD,
NCPR INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
DODDANAKUNDI INDUSTRIAL AREA 2,
SEETHARAMPALYA,
MAHADEVAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
6
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
TO R1 TO R5 FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE OF SECTIONS 13(1), 18
AND 19 OF RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY
EDUCATION ACT, 2009 AND SUB-RULE 4 OF RULE 12 OF
KARNATAKA RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY
EDUCATION RULES, 2010 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETTION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The prayers sought by the petitioners are as under:
1. A writ of mandamus issued to respondent Nos.1 to 5 for strict compliance of Sections 13(1), 18 and 19 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 12 of Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010.
2. A writ of mandamus issued to respondent No.1 for strict verification of conditions 5, 16 and 17 of Sub-rule 4 of Rule 12 of Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 and the Audited Reports along with the Bank 7 Statements of respondent No.6 for last seven years to find out the violations mentioned in Recognition Conditions issued by respondent No.4.
3. Recover the amount thus collected illegally by respondent No.6 and refund the amount with penalty to the applicable petitioners and the remaining amount to be deposited to the Karnataka Government exclusively to develop infrastructure of Government Schools in Rural Karnataka if not claimed by any parent within a stipulated time may be decided by this Hon'ble Court.
4. Issue a/n Writ/Order to respondent No.6 to stop all further admission to any grades, till the compliance of Recognition Conditions and renewal of Recognition Certificate.
5. Action against respondent No.5 with exemplary punishment for dereliction of duty even in the Pandemic Situation and for suppressing the complaints about the Fundamental Rights violation and harassment of thousands of Children.
6. Issue a Writ of Mandamus for an investigation against respondent No.6 in all branches (Whitefield, Yelahanka and Chimney Hills) in Karnataka by CCB against respondent 8 No.6 for embezzlement of funds and submit the report to this Hon'ble Court.
7. Pass such other order/s or direction/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
3. On perusal of the same, we find that prayer Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 are against respondent No.6, which is a private educational institution. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the children of these petitioners, except petitioner Nos.1 and 2, are studying in respondent No.6- school. He has also brought to our notice prayer No.1 in the writ petition and submitted that prayer No.1 is in public interest.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on advance notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5, submitted that this writ petition cannot be construed to be a public interest litigation as the petitioners, except petitioner Nos.1 and 2, as the parents of the children studying in respondent No.6-school, have ventilated their private grievance in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed as it is not a public interest litigation. 9
5. By way of response, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that liberty may be reserved to the petitioners to ventilate their grievance as against respondent No.6-school in a private interest litigation and liberty may also be reserved to file a public interest litigation insofar as prayer No.1 is concerned.
6. In the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition by holding that the instant writ petition is not purely a public interest litigation. Hence, liberty is reserved to the petitioners, except petitioner Nos.1 and 2, to ventilate their grievances as against respondent No.6- school in their private capacity. Insofar as prayer No.1 is concerned, if any public interest litigation is to be filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Cs