High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Pradeep Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Pradeep Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) And B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EANOALORE
DATED THIS THE 291?; DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR.P.D.DINAKARAN. CHIEF 1..J~USf1jiCET[j ._ "

AND
THE HONBLE MR. JusT'1cE,As1HOK'B,'TIINCRTGVERT  

WRIT PETITION NO.19714 §i'*2§)'D7 (EDr~1.--'§nT-QL} 

BETWEEN

1.

 *  .ATA'LUK ;,AND_ DIS1*Ri{3'E"BIJAI3UR.

SR1 PRADEEPKUMAR. _ . ~ 
S /O DHAREPPA _UP_PALAD1'Iv'£.MI, " 
AGED AEOUT;35'Y3EARS. :   "
OCC: BUSINESS/S_Q.CIAL ,
R/O SHIVAi\EAC;I;_  .    
TALUK &%p1sTR1OTv_B1.I.APVUR;--  

SR1 RAMANNA.  _,  _  ., ' -

S/O T1R'RAN.NA MAsfAB'1vN_AL.., 

AGED AIBOUT 42*YE;ARs_"--~« 

OCC: AGR1CNL*1*1_1R--E/s_OE'1AL WORKER,
R / O _;s H1VANAG1._

 PETYFIONERS

T'  C}.G.CHAGASHET'1"Y,ADV]

A "THE sTA3I'E OF KARNA'I.'A}{A
~BY1Tfs SECRETARY.
--.DEP.ARTMENT GP EIDUCATION [SECONDARW

M.s.BU1LD1NG,

'%   EANOALORE 550 001.



Ix.)

2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND HONORARY  
JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (PLANNING)  , 
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,  ' ».   '
M.S.BUILDING,

BANGALORE 560 001.

3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC :1N"S'IFl1jfCTIQN:S:;D«__  I

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
DHARVVAD CIRCLE.
DHARWAD.

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,  
BIJAPUR,      
DISTRICT BIJAPUR. I  ._ :  I  --«    RESPONDENTS

(BY SR1 B.VE;I§RAPi5A. fVAGA_j” ‘
THIS WRIT PETI’Ii’QV1$I?’£S:=FILEI.3; U’I~IDI§;R..AII-ITICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OI«fIN.DIA4*I>RAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED’t5.,1Gv.220O7,PA:3SED BY THE R2, VIDE
ANN–C, IN SO FAR AS SEI:NnoV.16_;”ED. ‘-233 SEES 2007 173.

THIS WRIT I>EIII’IOI$i”COIx.I’IIc.c§,.–ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

ASHOK B.Ifl’NCHIGrERI J3, THE FOLLOWING:

L ‘JEEDGMENT

Datre presented this petition in public interest

.1T’d1eIRandiI’1g {fiat S1 ‘\2IiIf§1I..e:in the nature of mandamus be issued to the

‘_I;cSpo:’1der;tSTtotestablish a Govemmem: School in Shivanagi, a

Village in Bijapur District.

49%

0;

submits that there is no girls’ school in and around the remote and

backward village, Shivanagi.

4. Per contra, Sri B.\/eerappa, the learned vthatc

there are not enough number of girl students:_’in..§Shivanagi vil:Ia:ge;1.i_:

There being no student~»takers. the»’G_overn1neVntV taken the
prudent decision of starting a school lieu of
Shivanagi. it in it i It A it

5. Our plain “co-rrigendurn reveals
that it is a non~sfiieali;ii1_§Ja’1*2d order. It does not
disclose that areifhei which have weighed
with the the proposed school from
Shivanagi to Thayal€anal1.a1li. V

:H’oweve_r; ‘the establishment of new schools in

.ill:xac.kwa1’d’ areas is’va’j_policy decision of the Government, we do not
_ _lropo’se to give Jaidivrection to the respondents to start a school in
Shivanagi. ‘llThe ends of justice would be met by our directing the

A”-;5:etitio.r1ers to give a comprehensive representation to the

‘é

respondent No.1. setting out alt the material particulars like the

number of schoois in and around Shivanagi, number ofsehoovl

going children in and around Shivaraagi, etc. The respond’eiitfi’~to{‘1–.– ~
is directed to dispose of the anticipated repre_sentati’on
months from the date of its receipt. Need1es:1s”te:’ ot;s_erve

reconsideration of the petitioners’ retifuest fotr-the estahiish.rnent of

a new giris’ school in Shivanagi has gotdéddtopiheurneaningfiil. V}

7. This writ petition is disposed No order as

to costs.

‘1

”” or i ..’C’hief311S’EiC9
Scifé
FUDGE