High Court Karnataka High Court

Acharya Prathistana vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Acharya Prathistana vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
 galofe --  . 'W 

THEHON'BLEAfli'.JU.S'77CE'S..    

S.I.'I'.EnensioI3,     
R Byits  . A    A

2 Kalikabetlitl t i 
Ciwna   "    %  
Rapid. By its      Petitioners.

(By Sn' 3.3.  A

    A.  .... 

I L %
Rapid.
 '' ._'{ M.S.Bldg.,

 

  Respondents.

I Z ” V’ S:’i_ AGA)

WRITPEHTIONNO. 793a00w5″‘¢’1éif:é.fiL_REfi#+PI;:

2

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the

etc.

Constitution, praying to qufi fine iatmigned order dated 4.9.2006,

This ‘Writ Petition coming on for Final Hearing this day,

Court made the following:

OEQER

In this case, the petitioners have

validity of 119 orders at AimexuresV,T’B_

whereby the recogiition granted to the

time pettti’ ‘(mars i filei! objections to the Show cause

guise issfied :23: Elie It is fizrther contended that

sei:v<')?'nd_ without considering the objections and

inind, has passed cyclo–styled orders. In this

he relied on the decision of this Court in SANNA

* 1;A.S*Ai?PA.«L,I/S EASAPPA SAIHYAPPA & ANOIHER — 1973(1)

six 43 and WVEE4NAN.D KR VS. THE COMMISSIONER,

'%

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & [5 "

ILR 2005 KAI? 5149.

3. Learned AGA appearing foxjthg has

justify the irnpugned orders.

4. Pemsal of me mm the
secondrespondent . applying
his mind. This case (supra) and
the practice of
pawng cycfgx’-‘sut!3ri<=:o:i "sé; a3iLjudiciaI without

be ….. ed.

is here that the State Government had issued

” in No.ED.28.PGC.94 dated 29.4.1994 Iaying

dowt ‘ 2. lyénguage poficy to be followed by the pnma.ry’ and high

in the State of Karnataka and the medium of :mtru’ ctioa to

E

be adopted at the primary stage. A Full Bench of this

ASSOC’IAfI’ED MANAGEMENTS or *

SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN sr§:4%1*z::%vV &1A~%

or KARNATAKA, BY 1115′ SECRETARY, 1§E1é#iRTMEAzZf’ 0;? R ”

EDUCA now & OTHERS .- {LR was 2395 haé §o:v;sidé;edV’V

the validity of the said
offending clauses 2, 3, 6A 8 of

6. In the and it is
accordingly anovmin ‘B and F’
dated 4.9.2905 L155: are hereby
second respmmm for
flesh and in the light of the

.{)f”No costs.

sdl-._
Judge

1 §mr:1{m