IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE s,AAAB9UL~:*eA)':EERf
WRIT PETI'I'ION No.5453/2010 £.E: DiNl'R:éG-'P)" t ; T 3
& M1sc.w.6122/2010 '
BETWEEN:
Saraswathi Vidyaniketana "Eamtsthe IR!' ' » ' " ' . t
Kencharalahalli H " '
ChintamaniTa1ukV '
Chik1<aba11ap11rVI)ist:rfict t A _
Rep. by its Secifétaggg V . "
K.P. Narayana"s'w.amy7;--_V V __ V'
Aged about 45 y;%:_ai_"s " ' ¢_ V PETITIONER
. . ' . 'I x
[By Sri. it/I..S.'--Chartdt§tsiie}§ét1=.%i3--abu, Adv.)
AND:_-- 'I
't V. 1 .& .;I'h£:V.Deputy bif'é'Ct0r
_V --Shik_shana Abhiyana
'Chf1Kkaba.1la.paur Taluk
' -,Chi1:1:vab'a;_li'apur District
V . 2. Education Officer
Sarita Shikshana Abhiyana
'A Chikkaballapaur Taluk
Chikkaballapur District RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
{By Sri. M. Keshava REddy, AGA.}
*****
This writ petition is filed under’Articles–‘_:.22_€isink; it
the Constitution of India praying setaside the–.01’dve;’ f
cancellation dated 30.12.2009 passed by R-2 as per_Af1:_i1.-KL’,
and etc.
Misc.W.N0.6122/2010 1s’fi1edeV underu: Section 151
of CPC and under VSection””1.’_33(1-»}.(2) of”-AKa1*r1ataka
Education Act, 1983, vpjfaying ;_ to ” direct for release of
fund. etc. : A ” v
This petitioiiand / coming on for
Orders this day–,,V C._._ou.r’t méide _t.he f0ll()Wing:–
' . ' ' H V The ._ entered into an
agreement/Iriemerantluin”‘—sf’ understanding with the 15′
respQnd’ent as ‘per”Annexure–A to run a hostel under the
Abhiyana’ Scheme’. It is the case of the
Apetitionefl:’thVt1’teidmitted 40 eligible students in its hostel in
V accordance , with the agreement/ memorandum of
:”understa._riding at Annexure-A. The petitioner has produced
_ «aVlis.t…sf the students adm’tted by it as per Annexure The
of understanding at Annexure–A. it is contended that all the
students who are shown in the list at Annexure~E arlelriot
eligible to be admitted to the hostel. it is contended–
students were only eligible to be admitted to the
the scheme. The respondents have
Rs.48,000/~ to the petitioner’ in respect of dslaidl’:
students.
4. Since the Scheme on 31.3.2010,
it is unnecessa1’yl*’gto de._cide~»:*the’V lifalidityilsflof the impugned
order. asliifthe petitioner in a sum of
Rs.f2.59,VV89.’r’5/– V is the 1st respondent has to
consider the”‘<application'l dated 5.4.2010. Therefore, I direct
' «the v.1_j5i'~respondent'to-consider the application dated 5.4.2010
has been produced along with
.6li2.2,' .2010 on its merits and pass appropriate orders
'r_pthereo;.i due verification of the records Within a period of
A lfthree-..rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
' is hereby clarified that this order should not be understood
ll