IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.38724 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
HOLY CHILD CONVENT A CO-EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT FOR PROVIDING NURSERY AND PRIMARY EDUCATION MANAGED BY THE SARASWATHI EDUCATION SOCIETY 1133/44, 9TH CROSS ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SMT SHOBHA SURESH.
(BY MR. VIKHAR AHMED, ADV. FOR MR. SHAHUL HAMEED, ADV.) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR CHILD RIGHTS PROTECTION, 4TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPTHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.
2. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BANGALORE SOUTH-I, SHANKARAPURAM, BANGALORE-560 004.
3. THE DDPI (ADMINISTRATIVE) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BANGALORE SOUTH … PETITIONER BANGALORE-560 004. … RESPONDENTS (BY MR. Y D HARSHA, AGA FOR R2 & R3 R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:21.8.2017 PASSED BY R-1 IN THE MATTER OF 468 BEING ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Vikhar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, Additional Government Advocate for respondents 2 and 3.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the State Commission for Child Rights Protection, by which, the commission has directed the B.E.O not to keep licence of the petitioner in abeyance until further orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is per se without jurisdiction as the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 does not empower the commission to pass any such order. At best, the commission can make a recommendation to the competent authority and suggest measures which have to be taken against the concerned person.
5. Learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 could not point out any provision empowering the respondent No.1 to pass any such order.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused records.
7. From the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, it is evident that the commission has no adjudicatory power and it can only make recommendation for completion of the enquiry to the concerned Government. In the absence of any statutory provision, the impugned order is per se without jurisdiction. The same is therefore, quashed. Needless to state that the respondent shall be at liberty to take action against the petitioner is so advised, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV