High Court Karnataka High Court

Adi Dravida Viddya Samsthe (R) vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Adi Dravida Viddya Samsthe (R) vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
A REGIONAL' DIRECTOR

" *  CEANOALOREAI

 'NAT1ONAL'CO"O.VNCrL FOR

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE

DATED THIS THE 15112 DAY OF NOVEMEERC.._2Oi " 

BEFORE

THE HONELE MR.JUST'ICE:'SIABDUi,   I

WRIT PETITION No.27S73 OE2Qi-ti iEDN'--REO-p}" 

BETWEEN:

ADI DRAWDA VIDDYA SAMSi1'HE"(R)_  .
SASUVEHALLI, HONNALI TALUK   ;
DAVANAOERE DISTRICT A  " '
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
MR KRISHNA MUE?II'h'Y

4  V _ ij ...PETI'I'IONER
{By S1*__1':«"".A'L 1A*2.K.R1SH;\1A *BHA:'I',':ADV.}

THE STATE OE KARNATAKA-. _ '
REP BY ITS S.EcRETARy_  '
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
v1D1«IANA*~SOUDHA _

V TEACHER EDUCATION
*3 S'TC-ELOVORCCSOV BUILDING, HMT POST
BANGALOREé§_36005I

REPR_ESEN'l'ED BY ITS

 RESPONDENTS

. ,'[:B3* Sn M [KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1

V SR: VINAYAK, ADV. FOR M/S. ASHOK HARNAHALLI
ASSOCIATES, ADVS;

THIS VJRIT PETITIOI\I IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226’AND
227 OF’ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ‘DIRECT

THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER AND PASS ..
ORDERS ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTEDQV BY
PETITIONER ON 6.2.2008 AT ANNEXURE–A VVITHIi\.I_ I

SPECIFIED BY THE HOI\I’BLE COURT. ‘. ~~ — ,\ _

THIS WRIT PE’i’lTION COMING; ONI PREi.ll\fIEl_\IARY
HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE c1oI;?RI’*.PAssED

FOLLOWING:

,QRns§_~
In this case, the for a Writ of
mandamus directing consider the
application; been filed by the
to start D.Ed. course

at Hon”a_lli’ “District.

Learnled —- -Advocate appearing for the 2*”

that the application filed by the

petui:tion.er’ been closed in the year 2008 itself. At

this “st__age, the learned Advocate appearing for the

‘pe_titioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted

I ». to file a fresh application for grant of recognition to start

D.Ed. course.

_M”…..,m..,
“V.

…3_.

3. Since the application filed by the petitioner has

aiready been closed by the 2″” respondent, the ques:’t.i.o’;1V

of directing the 2″” respondent to .

application does not arise. However, 41ibert’y”‘_’rese1fvVedc.

to the petitioner to file a fresh 2ipp1icatiori._to

D.Ed. course. If such an is i1i;i’ec1:,v..thV¢_i§25d

respondent is directed toV____t:co:nsi_der.”the same in
accordance with law.

Writ petition st{1nds:’¥dispo.sedf’. iaccordingly. No

Sd/H
Judge