W.P.1543i.O7
IN THE HIGH cotmrr or KARHATAKA AT ._
mrrsn 1*:-as THE 26TH DAY or MAY. zoos "
THE HOIPBLE MKJUSTIZCE :§;sjPA*r1_r.
BETWEEN:
Maatha Vidya Samsthe _ 7
Represented by its Socretary,
WRIT psrrrzox no. gsqs-3.'; 2oo_:';*_,_,-:g_'_:;;:§_z;g'iis'r;ja=s-.oVV
Smt. Nagarathna, Wfo Do§ldavtit':rap§a_, "
Aged about 50
Residing at Oba.1é1p:_1iéi, . ' _ V
Shivapura Posit, " V. K
GubbiTa1uk, Di:3_t1*_i.<:t'i;.' ~
(By 3:1. A2V.Gs.s1éfld'i;a;oppa',.._§u!§;.3. _'
AND:
1. Sri; 'Madakuari Viagéa Samsme {Regd),
Réfiireisorztcd by Sm1:,.,_;5udha Devi,
" 0 Dhalza-3_1;'aya, Aged about 40 ycam,
V its Secretary,
Obalapiiara, Shrlvapura. Post,
" ffégaiavaéii Bfiobli, G11bbi'I'a1uk,
Tumklir' District.
" " --: AA The missioner of Education,
V. Deparmcnt of i'ublio Iiistzuctions,
' "N_m~pathu,nga Road,
" New Public Office Building,
« __;K.R.Circ}c, Bangalore »-- 560 001.
Govemment of Kamataka
:35 Appellate Authority,
Secretary to Govemment~2,
(Pfimaly 85 Secondary Eéucation)
Education Department,
PETITIOi'IER
W°.P.15431.0'?
Multistotied Building,
Bangalore M 560 003. RE8PO!i_Dm\I_1'$_
{By Sri. M.V.Hiremath, Adv. for C] R- 1;
Sri.B.1V£anohar, AGA for R-2 & R-3}
This petition is med under Aniexes. e226 5:. :22? o£i'ih"'e.
Constitution of India praying to quashi "C.3rdei'V. 'vvz:1atg:d.'
02.04.2007 passeé by the 2nd respondent _V _ Agipeélt.
No.152] 1999 proeiueed as Annex’u:je–F’ é11_owi11g the Aapplioégtion L.
in question and etc.
This petition comingon Piearitnggithis day,
the Court made the fol1oWi3:;g”:~.. f . V
_.o_5i.;.$___Iiaf.i
1. In this__. ffieif vnetitioner-institufion is
chailenging …. ” passed by the
Commissioner’ of of ?ub1ic Instructions,
Bangalore, ‘iii. Apvpe’-alt vicle Annexu1″e–F. The
_Vpetitione§:iV has aIso_i_Vieiha]iienged the ottier dated 21.08.2007
in “.pa:’s3.=;dx” 3;,” “3§d respondent-Govemzaaent of Karnataka vide
A1:i12.¢::i;;é»’o;j\t\i f{i.i’Vv’C€3I3.Sequentia1 relief is also sought by the
i it petitioner seeking a direction to the 2nd reoponcient to aiiow’ the
it it ” anplieations “filed by the petitioner vide Az:1::1exures–D and E.
The dispute between the petitioner and the 15*’ respondent
” _ ‘t”is.i§§§i:11 regartl to the question of alleged transfer of Sri.Madakari
High School, Nidavanda, situated in Nelamangala taiuk, in
@*
W.P,1543l.0’7
favour of the petitiozler-i1:1stit1.1tio1:1. The assertion:
petitioner is that by a resolution dated 09.03.19€}’4:” 0′
the 18* I’€’,’S§)OZ1(Zl8I1t-Il3.S’£it11ti0{1 the mailageméentfdot; 0 0
School was txansferied in favour of
the purpose of running the the * 0′
petitioner-I11stitutio13, had also passet1._a”..0. tesovliztion on
09.03.1994 accepting and fétflhshehsilhahsfer. The 013?:
had passed an orde:’–dated:A’22’.:02A. the transfer.
Agg1’i3V€d by litflfespondent had filed
an appealv’_h_eto’r§;”::- Public Instructions,
Bangaloresz Commissioner set aside the
order passed the by the same, the petitioner
herein Vheforefthe Government. The said appeal
16.052005 and the matter came to be
»t.o~..theIbmmissioner for a fresh enquiry. A copy of
Z the isprodueed at A11nex13.Ie~A. At paragraph 9 of
oxiderz the Government has found that in. the xerox
A jlthe resolution produced by the petitioner herein (before
the Government} in pages 5 and 6 the resolutions stated to have
heel} passed in the meeting held on 16.02.1994 was available
and in pages 7 to 9 the tesolution stated to have been passed on
09.03.1994 which related to the alleged transfer of the school of
fir
W.P.},S431.0′?
4»
the £5″ respo1:1dent–m3nagement in favour of the petitioner
herein was avaiiabie. The Government also found 3
resolution book containing the resolution dateci {}9.”Q;:’_’3. 1:9′???
not taken on record before the Commiseionet at t11eVit1″zn_e When’.
the matter was heard. It is further seei1__fi*oii1 paiegfapfi
the 15* respondent hexein had alsov-eoioduced-.aV it
the State Government corlfendittgiii it Wae i resolution
book pertaining to the contained
Iesolutions passed..:tiuxing;’Aitj:i¢ on 06.02.1994,
06.04.1994, i:F.J9§?r;iiiiiiBased on the said
document,.—-it- .iGovernment by the 13′
respondetit ho; ouch Iesolution passed on
09.03.1994 aiieged transfer of the school.
_.TI,’he petitioiier Iierein contended that the resolution book
A”pro€iVu<_3ed respondent herein was a concocted one as
sigfln~ato.resVV~i?"'n1embers under the aileged resolution dated.
V 16.O2.ifi(}O€i<V:\.a7ei'e in the hand–wrifi31g of a single person. The
.,',A"';_§};W;i§¥JC'I7i1_II1€fIV1"{' has referred to this aspect of the matter and has
" "that the matter required serious and detailed
fionsideration particularly as to whether the documents
jmoduceci by the 15' respondent were genuine one or not. 111 this
b md, the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner
w;p.15431.o7'
.3
with a directzion to issne notice to the parties and"-.pe:ss
appropriate orders after hearing the matter afresh. i
3. When the matter was pending before the K”
the petitioner herein made an applieatien ;éee§§;izig._a’~di1ee”tien’iii:
the 1″ respondent to produce the’ies91ufiei3 by L’
them arid thereafter to send the -fer of the
signatures to the hand~wiiting_e}rpe:g§i’%”‘~ ~ -l’3),4y’vi:=l.A1:”1′”{“.1’t1CI’ direction was
also sought to the Chief Panchayat, to
produce the ippstateei:e”iee§;e.:e’eee’–s’ebm1tted by the 1%:
respondent aitieeediy contained the
photogmpitts the members of the
Managing has by his order
dated titre appiicatioa holding that there
ad”n:eed’Afoi*..refen’iri§tbe matter for the expert opinion. The
‘_.t1:a.e View that no further reference for the
was requixeé. at that moment as there was
_, ‘eicteugh niaterial on record to hear the case on merits. it is
by the ieemed Additional Govemment Advocate that
it –fiiereiafter the matter has been adjourned for being heard. It is
at the bar that the matter is still pending
emfion on merits by the Commissioner.
@;/same for handwvriting expert,
W.P.15431.()7
7
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties arrtl.To11
careful perusal of the materials on record, it is
specific stand taken by the 1″ respondent in K V’
obiections filed to the writ petition is
the resolufion book containing the lirest§11:l?.io;;~.
09.03.1994. ‘§’herefoIe as nghey by fer V
the 1″ respondent, a direction tile reseiution book
containing the resolution be issued.
However, if the by the 15*
respondent~Ins;itatiQn:li:- 7:i;s the purpose of
enabling to l photo copies of the
‘allegedly part of the original
resolution book’ not then it is open for the
petitione.r;toi’insist inference shall be drawn against
for not producing the original of the
resolution of which they have produced before
ivtire Gorremsrrenvillwhen the matter was in appeal. it is perhaps
aeontexrt that the Commissioner has observed that on the
‘available materials, the matter could be disposed of and
:£her’eilwas no need for calling for any documents or for referring
W,P.1S43I.()’?
8
7. It cannot be forgotten that the proceedings the
Commissioner are not pmceedings before a Civil Cenrt:’vf§3ei’e
such procedure to have the matter referred. for V’
the ha11d-writing experts can be r’esc£rted”i;o,_ filng
efiort has been already made once
the stand of the 1*” respondent ‘i”that reskoilfition is it
passed by it and the same is eoritradieted “ti1e’ip-etitioner
stating that a resolution fact passed on
09.03.1994, on i:::asi2f.;iioit”g iproduced by the
respective and on the
basis of other.AeAvideiii1ee¢. has to record necessary
findings. for the petitioner to invoke
the jurisdietionof Article 226 to challenge an
passed.i:’o;,_f__tii.e Commissioner, particularly when he
in materials available were sufieient for him to
merits. After the matter is decided on
V .mer’its.;”if petitioner is aggrieved by the findings recorded and
it it ‘«f}?.E’;;iCI’ fjassed, it is open to him to take up all the CO1’fl€1’l.tiOI1S
avaiiabie to him including the ones that are being
against the impugned interim order gassed. I do not find
it need to interfere with the interim order passed by the