IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.36621/2019 (EDN – RES) BETWEEN :
1. GURUJYOTHI EDUCATION SOCIETY [R] A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.5404 1ST FLOOR, RAVINDRANAGAR HASSAN-573201 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY Mr. A.R.MANJUNATH BABU.
2. OXFORD ENGLISH PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOL KHB COLONY, KUVEMPUNAGAR II STAGE HASSAN-573201 REP. BY SECRETARY Mr. A.R.MANJUNATH BABU. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRIRANGA.S, ADV. A/W SRI SHODHAN BABU.A.M., ADV.) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCITON NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION VANI VILAS ROAD HASSAN-573201.
4. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, HASSAN VANI VILAS ROAD HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No.1 TO GRANT APPROVAL FOR RELOCATION OF THE SCHOOL PREMISES; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to grant approval of relocation of school premises inter alia seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application dated 30.10.2014 seeking relocation of the school filed under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (change in the Governing Council or Change in the Location of Private Educational Institutions) Rules, 2006 (‘Rules 2006’ for short).
2. The 1st petitioner is the Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960, whereas the 2nd petitioner is an institution functioning under the petitioner No.1 Society. It is contended that the 2nd petitioner was functioning from the premises at Ravindranagar from 1982-1999. The school was shifted from its earlier location in Ravindra Nagar to a location in Kuvempunagar in the year 1999 and thererafter to the new building constructed by the petitioner in the CA site allotted. The petitioner made an application for renewal of recognition at its new address relating to the period 2012- 2017 and the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner ought to have filed the application seeking permission to relocate the school from its earlier address to the present address. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the application for relocation as per the procedure provided in Rules 2006. The 3rd respondent thereafter granted renewal of recognition for the period 2012-2017. On the application filed for renewal of recognition for the period 2017-2022, the same has been returned on the ground that proceedings of relocation are pending before the competent Authority, pursuant to which the petitioners have submitted a representation before the Block Education Officer, Department of Public Instructions. However, the same has not been responded to. The petitioner indeed had filed Appeal No.17/2017-18 under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which came to be dismissed on the ground that the application for relocation is pending. Subsequently, the revision petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 131 of the Act 1983 and the proceedings are deferred in view of the pendency of the relocation application. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that though the students are enrolled under the RTE Act, no reimbursement is made in view of the partial recognition now granted. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that conditional recognition has been granted to the petitioners institution relating to the academic year 2019-2020. The application submitted inasmuch as relocation is under consideration.
4. It is obvious that the pendency of the application for relocation is adversely affecting the petitioners right to get the recognition.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the application submitted by the petitioners on 30.10.2014 seeking relocation of the school and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of above.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: