High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri M Nagaraja vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shri M Nagaraja vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2008
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
 

§N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT .BA:eQALo§_E- T'   ' 

DATED THIS Tm; 13th DAY cg'I%71§:§v*E.§ea__BER _ 

PRESENT K   V %
THE HON'B1:.E MR. RI).  
THE HOWBLE _§(;§i;;.sA;3HAHiT

 maw Af.éPE_AL= N0A;'i's_5 1§,q{1,;mYAp_pA _
AGED AB(}IjT_'f59 YEARS'
R/*0 no 595,' t3TH"£3ROSS
M100. _ LAYGUT H 

_ -BANGAL_OREv476';-     .API-"'ELLANT

)

% THE 's:.mTE op' KARNATAKA
'-- BY ITS SECRETARY
'EDHCATION DEPARTMENT
M'."S.BUiLDING

V AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

 BANGALORE-01

DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCAWOES3
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMEEWT
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE~O 1



3 BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
scum RANGE-3
B P WADIA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALGRE~»O4 J _

4 JINGLE BELLS
6m MAiN,9'1'I-I CROSS __
MICE) LAYOUT, BTM IISRAGE A
BANGALORE-76 ' 
8'1' ITS PRESXDENT   *  ;
SMT MAYURI PARMEsI¢;ARA_M...'*;%.REsPoix:ma;NTs

WRIT APPEAL FILE?) U.f.S;'4_ O§'»._TI-IE KARNATAKA
HEGH COURT AC? PRAYING 'To..»sET, A$3i§"JE THE ORIDER
PASSED IN T.H'Ev.._WE_?IT' P§j'I'ITi~€3N N<}.3?'02/O3 DATED
01/08/12008.3   2 '  

This  up for Preliminaxy Hearing on
this day,' SABHAHIT. J;,._.C1c1iV;:::I:d the following.
V. Vaggpammxr

    by the fourth respondent in WP.

beixzvvggzaggxietvttd ‘by $13.6 erder {iatsd 1.8.2008

VV Singlat Judge has quashed the mtier

détteci passed by the thixd respondent in the writ

pefifiénsfilock Edzxcatien Oficcr pmhibifing the Writ

« ,petifibner fmvm naming kinde§g:ten«

Education Department started piessurisingii ‘s.i1}:u

petitioner to obtain 1’egist1’atio1:1:=.A: Iindéf

Education Act, 1983 as a ‘Privffat:: E9d}i¢ati0n«:’-Ii’ ;;§;gfit1;:ti;3:;’ .

and this was éone by the ‘1Vj}:1fiisu’:;§:nt to the
Government orcier datétgififi. 1 ohtained
registration fmm t’he activities of
tltm petiti-131161″ a Vi€’W net to
aritagonise ‘ meanwhile, fourth
msponfiéfii ” ihfgnfion starteci sending
ob}ecticv§Vi–:s” various authorities like

Education Depa11;1’;.1efx_t, Palikc, Police eta,

< to. the' V'f}eii%ioVner running the §}I'€~'}}I'i.Il1aIj,' school.

rfispondent along with ten others

a'pp§t§ac1§¢§§[i':_ court in W.P.No.2033'?'/2005 impleading

I'€Sp'(')11(1V"f2;f1"£§ 1, 2 and Bangaiore Mahanagara Palike. The

A C_"fii':i"i"ioner contested the petition by fiiing counter statement.

' Hiearneti Single Juége after hearing the parties allawed

" hghe Writ peiition and directed the petititmer to close down

their activities by the end of acadamic year 2006-200? by

u»''"'*

order dated 26.2.2007. The said order of Shiglé .

Judge was challenged in W.A.Nc::.'77£:3 / 2§){f§'?

appeal is admitted. The ieam::d_ Sing1eAJ::.dge sré}ii1'é:V"d'ispi;fléi1:g"'V _

of the writ petition (ii3"€Ctt'$€ii* Efififi to
reconsider the appficaficn fégistration
along with the objtecticifié V and to take
decision acco§J<*(ii£:¢;gL:V:'tr secondary school are 0113}; required to be

‘1feg1:§te1f:ci’A–é*;f1tIT:=fi9§erefcre, petitioner»-Institutien is taken out of

_V Bf the Kamataka Education Act and Ruics. The

” V,pv3Lit,io11ér was not aware of the circular and it came: to know

.’ same {hiring the pendency of writ aizrpeal before this

The third respondent issued notice to the petifioner

ané the fourth respondent for the purpose of holding an

W

12

prahibited fibm running pr!-:–pri,maxy school _

30.5.2007 keeping open all thé W!V(:§E’.’¥’1′.£;’!’€”31″,’flIi¢i)§1S.:A’V:uff)’i’:xVifflfiflii.

consicicration. Accotflingiy, {ha

Being aggzieved by the order

preferred W.P.No.3702v/3.008 by the
order of the leanzed Single this appeal.

9. It is g<:1rzia;*VVj'_£"roz1:§ order passed by

the 1c:amed Siz} 5gl<;:'1'1;§:1.dgé'.'ufvflziis in w.P.No.29337/2905
dated .1';liic:_.i%:aj:11ed Single Judge has in the
said oxtlézxfisfliiltit in pa1:a–33 atxd 34 of the order

datf<,§26'.~FZ.20€3'? that in View of the provisions of Section

%%e§;1e '2gb; of sub–S€c'£i0n 22 of Secticn 2 and the

L%"dc'géga7o:e:% »§*éfr"_v.V.1;_.i1§~?.;:"i§ivis3'.n Beach in Vifiyavardhaka S:-mgh vs.

Staffi of.f}i.ar1:liatai<a (ELR 2005 Karnataka 290?) helé that the

_ 'app¢l1ai1t..is an Educafional institution Inquiring ragistratien

' 'zmdcr the provisions of the Education Act. However, While

-»v(ii%sp0si11g of the W.A.N0.778/2907 on 16.1.2008 liberty has

V been given to the appeiiant to chalisenge the order dated

‘\.J~

‘$4

impugned order dated 3.0.5.200’? it Was_.fc1i.i§d.V V ‘age ~..

petitioner had not provided ne(£.5fssa:.a:y « £315

mmzing the pI~e-primary schr;»?<:1__a13d "tt:4é"concii"£:§1t};:§.$'_imficfiééd ,

While gzantiflg certificats of had
not been compiitci witil:-'_.'F=he a pre-
prixnary school V since order dated
306.200'? as;"iLi'1'«t.*:A;_c}x"cie1::;._ Single Judge
has been lixokiing that it maynot be
appmp 14i.é1'fe"_v to 1131} without any
descrififivfé in the Large interest of

kindcxfgafiéfi. s't13;c£¢11tAAs–._b'by ":<)1wc1c;' dated 25.9.2008 passed in

u _ Alihfififfilfi, unless the said defects as notfid in

L' ir;:pzig;'§éé:TG;Eder dated 3{}.:'"S,200'? am rectificd intsrest of

I<;l13.£ii<%e£rgai"ti:Vtr;V.;=51:1V,z<:!e11ts it would not be appmpriatcs: to permit

the fxcfifigfitér to run the prwpfimaxy school. Accerdingly, we

~ Ah:a:ii(1..¢&t§1:Vas¢t the petitioner shauld be permitted 2:0 mm a pit'

school only afisr the defects as Iloticed in the order

u Wdattzszi 30.5.2{)O?' am zwectifmesi and till then. the petitioner is

not entitled to run the ;3re~primary schcml.

15

With the above said modificafiozas ordgfiti” ..

passed by the learned Single Ji11u{ig§t.,.4 t;i1£$’:i¥-V3′

disposed of accordingly. ”

Chief T113110?

. .,§,_351.’3~{f5i: Yes} HQ): .V J