IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.30652/2016 (EDN –RES) BETWEEN :
JAYAPRAKASH EDUCATION SOCIETY (R) NONAVINAKERE, TIPARURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 224 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ...PETITIONER (BY SRI S.N.BHAT, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 3. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 18.04.2016 (ANNX-F).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the recognition of the petitioner’s institution has been withdrawn retrospectively for want of basic infrastructure and minimum admission of students contrary to Rule 13 (1)(a) of the Karnataka Education Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula etc.,) Rules, 1995.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the show cause notices were issued by the Block Education Officer-respondent No.3 and the order impugned is passed under Section 39 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (‘Act’ for short) by the respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Public Instructions which is ex-facie illegal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made an endeavour to justify the order impugned contending that the competent Authority has passed the order under Section 39 of the Act as such issuance of the notices by the Block Education Officer would not invalidate the order impugned.
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. It is a settled law that the competent Authority has to pass the order issuing notice and hearing the affected parties. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 is the competent Authority under Section 39 of the Act. In such circumstances, the power of issuing of notices cannot be delegated to the Block Education Officer- respondent No.3. This flaw found in the proceedings goes to the root of the matter and the same being unsustainable, the order passed on such invalid notices deserves to be set aside.
6. For the aforegoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 and the notices issued by the respondent No.3 are quashed. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.2 to proceed with the matter after issuing the necessary notice and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the reply/objections, if any, to be filed by the petitioners.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: