High Court Karnataka High Court

Santhosh Education Trust vs State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Santhosh Education Trust vs State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
III THE BEG}! COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

I)A"I'ED THIS THE 1673 DAY OF JULY, 2009 

BEFORE

was I-IOITBLE mR..ms'r1cE B.s.pA*m. 4 '   "' "

WRIT PETI'!'IOR' Hg,._;9673 0935209 ;:s~,:n;.m+.;%;»;j%'% 

3 ETWEEN:

Santosh Eéucatizm Trust

A registered Trust
Repiesented by its Secretaly
Sh1'i.A.S.AI1war Pasha,'
Aged 35 years
Sudhamanagar,   '   " .  
Bangalore-560 €327.   .  V '- _   FETITIONER

(By s;~i.: K.'§J::>1;a{na£;¢i_é;§ra,,';adg:~'.; 

AND:

1. State i;fMKéar:1Va.€7&§~'a;  
Repféssnted byfis Pjrincipal Secmtmy;
,  & Secondary Education Dept,
~  E3ufldii1g,V H _____ H ,
 Bfiigsilerym -- 560 ()0 1.

   VC§§£1_IH§SSiO3;1€I'f0f Public Instructions,

" =,'D6:P3:.I':*IIii%:it of Educaiion,
 Nngpgflfzunga Road,
" BE;-mgalore --~ 5560 O0 1.

4_ Députy Dirscicr of P"L"£}3§C Instzuction,
_ ffiajiigalorc South
H I:3a2:1ga10rt=:--56O U32.  R.E3POHBEH'§'3

(By Sri.B.Man{>ha;~, 21.933

:3¢"Jr§r

 



[K3

Tlajs Writ Petition is fiieé under Articles 226 
of the Ccnstitufion of India praying to 

respondents form enforcing the 'Language Po1i§:yf" of the"

Government of Karnaiaka in a manner inconséiéfsteiit.’ V.
the ozder and judgment dated O2.{}?.;’2008 bf the. Faxfij
Bench of this Court in W13′ NO. 14363] 19_’3’4″iI_1_:r£:Spec$A of__
the petitioner and therefore to q3I€t§h”€hc:’. 1’ej_§3Ct§CI: cider
dated 02.03.2009 issued by 1:31;? 3″ A. .?I*es}:}0nd’c:11:

AI}I}8XLi.I’€i’:-D and <~:t{;..

This Petition coming prefirninary
day, the Court made the folloWi1n«gV:~ ”


w§Rfifi§.[%%

In    ;§:¥1al1:=::1ging the

co1nmuni:¢:;1s, Bangalore:
that the aypficafion fied
by the fi:V)(‘:?;’_.1iti{)1’1vé1’j’%£*’1.7viS’€:’: .SE$€kiI1g :registration of English

{mm 18* to 5′?! Stzmdaxd for the

» 20£}9-3O cannot be granted as the mattsr is

ézhé Apex Couri. It is further stated in the

im54,§31:gj:£:z:.€1″:ié}1dz::rse:3::1-31′}: that after thfi tiecision in SLP, the

V *:t,z;}it:s { made by the mfifioner — Trust W33} 33:: considered

japprapzfiate ii€CiSiO1’1 will be taken.

2? Crauflsel appearing for the petitioner §1acz’21g

raiiafice an the judgment of the Full Banch of this Court

%//,

-53..

involved in Wxit. Wztition N$.6394v~6395/ 2009. In View cf

Elm same, a similar orciar deserves to be passc:c:’=’:ii;–.’i31is,’

case as well.

4. in the result, this \x?ritA»p4=:t:§tic#_i1V”i’$” :;};;:sx£2::ai;A_in;.,V V’

part. The im,pugne:d end<3rsemen't««isi;i1et1 Vizié".'&11;;exjfi:z:é¥7–

VB is quashed. Petitiener ~wii:ihi1:{
one week fmm today schooi
far imparting e&11ca1V:i'€3:;;A' in Tfifi Bra
resgonfient $h;aE1 V' :'§,hE* V v_.é'c <.:0rdance wit}:

law and pas}; _%§rd¢f$– four Weeks fr-cam.
the data Qfikfiéévipi.t1ié}épfi£i:§§ition:_"VW" A'

5. S313}. is permitted E0 1316

memo of f3}:ip€ara:1é3..’§;#i’i:h§;1’thr€€: xxseeks.

sa/–? A
Judge; *2: