High Court Karnataka High Court

Kannada Nutana Vidya Samasthe vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Kannada Nutana Vidya Samasthe vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
3

Bench judgment of this Court in the case of 

IQSRNATAKA ~--::s~ 132 straw or KAR!VA'£'46KA,HA__Bi?'..{ 

Impaximzvtr or ELIUCAHON  '"  ti; 'I142 260081' 

KAR 2895, is questioned beforié.V:hE~:f  
same is pending adjudiéaiiipraf ATh._c_:.   of this
Court in the aihrgcifigd _j.:1as:'»  ruled that
the government    {:hiidre:1 stuc£ying
in     have prirnayy
educatifhii  or in the regonai

Ai:*§._-Vig;i:z31:;iv§ cférticles 19 (mg), 36 and 30(1) of

the Cc::stitut:o r;-;'c;:":_in.§§'ia;'

  ieazned Govemmtant Advocate

  contends that the matter wiil came up

 ._  Court on 213'; Aprii 20U9 for hearirig

éI1c£v~.ft:~ii€;:9éf{>r'6 he prayed for adjourning the mattar for

V n ssgmé" time.

The said submission is opposed by the {earned

'T ceumsxsi a§p€3I'iI1g on behalf sf fihfi petitioner by

csntending that the matter has came up before £33111':

\(~/3



4
H2111 only for one time and subsequentiy, it_...i_s being

posted beforre the Registrar. He further subL¥1it$ 'ffJi§i's:§: the

matter is posted on 1?. 15' Aprii 2009 bei"of§ 

of Supreme Court and that it: $33'. take _:sc:JJ:21£_: mé:ére?i:im€: A' 

for hearing.

86 that as it may;  fihe  mu
Bench is questiorI§€1«_ bef{5f:et   119 illterim
order is ganted as!_<§§1' the judgment of
the Full éfieiiig  and consequentiy,
  __ bofigld by it. Therefore, the

:*eje<':ti.o:if1-   ..§§i'p;§ii}:atioI: filed by the petitioner

»»}:}r3_yAing fd1'AA._1fé:gis1n:'ation to run Ejnglish Illédiufll schooi

'A  :.:1ji'«--..v£11e g'u:1d that the matter is pending

 ~.  before the Apex Court, cangnst be

 Tim classes wiil start from 151 of June 2909.

A' '='31_fh'11iS mare £5 {1I'g€flC}' in the maria'. in V3692 of the

$31116, {he respondents W111 have to considm" E116

appiication of the petitioner for regifitratien on IT£”1flI’itS, in

acaardance with law, and in the Eight 3:’ the jiidgmemi of

P8

the Fui} bench of this Qotirt Cited supra. Acccrdingly,
the foilowing order is made ;

The impugnad endorsement/0rder.j{i(ite’

‘1-9′ dated 26.3.2009 passsd by 431

quashed. The application :tv”i’1é’d”b-ytt;’E:1e .pé:fité.Q£;e19«’ pHr’ayif:gx

permissien for regist1at:iori’.__td’.V_nm ‘V;’$figli’sii’:.4 ‘médium

schooi shall be: considfiréd. by time-1%: ‘1*e§§p6I;§iéht No.4 in
accordance withjiaw zfiefits the fight of
the judgment o1″V”tV;_h<{:_V (cited supra). The

petitioner shali f"1£§~:. 1 :Vap39:Iica.i:i.o:1 praying for

registration cf the Spiication within ibur Weeks Erom

tfic , date of redaiépi _;a4\p}:%}i{§éition.

— ~ .T.T’.j’§3g’:$i_¥:-»;3eti£ioi;,§§ dispersed af accordingiy.

*m.11,i 4?.

Sd/-I
Tudge