IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.6576/2019 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN :
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND TRIBES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R) KANTEERAVANAGARA BENGALURU – 560096 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI A.T.RAMESH ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.N.BHAT, ADV.) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU -560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI 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-1 DATED 31.12.2018 IN APPEAL NO.63/2018 (ED 522 PGC 2018) VIDE ANNEXURE D AND ALSO ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 24.7.2018 ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 31.12.2018 in appeal No.63/2018 (ED 522 PGC 2018) whereby, the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by respondent No.2 has been confirmed.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the Education Institution imparting education to the students in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short). It appears, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 67 of the Act, proposing to appoint the Special Officer. However in the said notice relating to the subject, it was mentioned as appointment of Administrator. As such, the petitioner has sought for a clarification by letter dated 26.04.2018. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without providing the clarification as sought for, Respondent No.2 has proceeded to pass the order impugned contrary to the well established principles of natural justice. The order of respondent No.2 is void ab initio as no adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner to put forth the objections, in the absence of the clarification made. Further, the order of respondent No.1 confirming the order of respondent No.2 is erroneous and accordingly, seeks for setting aside the orders impugned.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents though made an endeavor to justify the impugned orders, emphasized that two notices were issued to the petitioner but no reply was filed as such, no option was left to respondent No.2 except to proceed with passing of the impugned orders.
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
5. It is apt to refer to Section 67 of the Act which provides for taking over the management of educational institutions in public interest. It is clear that where the State Government is of opinion that the management of any educational institution should either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the said educational institution be taken over, it may, after giving one month's notice to the person or body of persons incharge of the management of such educational institution to make any representation, direct by notification, that the management of the said educational institution shall with effect on and from the date specified therein vests in the State Government.
6. The power to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of the Act is conferred on the State Government. However, the show cause notice as well as the order under Section 67 of the Act has been passed by respondent No.2. On these grounds alone, respondent No.1 – Appellate Authority ought to have set aside the order of respondent No.2.
7. It is not in dispute that no clarification is made by respondent No.2 pursuant to the request made by the petitioner, as regards, the appointment of Special officer/Administrator Officer. It is also apparent that show cause notice depicts in the subject column as appointing the Administrative Officer whereas, finally it is for appointing the Special Officer the notice is issued. Under such circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of respondent No.2 to clarify the inconsistency found in the show cause notice. It is in this background, the orders impugned if examined, it is an order void ab initio as no reasonable opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to show cause. It is well established principle that any order passed against the principles of natural justice is an order in nullity and the same cannot be sustained.
8. These aspects ought to have been considered by the Appellate Authority in proper perspective and the same having not been done, it is necessary to interfere with the orders impugned.
9. The impugned orders are quashed, respondent No.1 is at liberty to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner if the circumstances warrant so. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ