IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.4821 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA VIDYARTHIGALA POSHAKARA JAGRUTHI VEDIKE [R], REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, RAVI SON OF NARASIMHAIAH, NO.161, 5TH B CROSS, RAMAIAH BADAVANE, PEENYA SECOND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 058.
(BY SMT.SUMAN HEGDE, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EDUCATION REGULATING AUTHORITY URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 002.
2. THE SECRETARY, CHINMAYEE EDUCATION TRUST (R), NEW CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL, 1ST MAIN ROAD, …APPELLANT MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, HEGGANAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU – 560 091.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
4. THE BEO, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH – 1, BENGALURU – 560 010.
5. PUNEETH KUMAR V., S/O VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 091. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN THE FATHER VIJAYAKUMAR.
6. NIRAJ V., S/O VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 091. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN THE FATHER VIJAYAKUMAR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR R2;
SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1, 3 AND 4; R5 AND 6 – NOTICE DISPENSED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2017 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOs.3111-3113/2017 ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent pertaining to fixation of fees etc., writ petitions were filed. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that the first petitioner therein has no locus standi to question the impugned order, however, liberty was reserved to other petitioners to prefer an appeal under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995. Being aggrieved by the said observation, on locus standi the first petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant being an Association of Parents is entitled to question the impugned order. In support of their contention, she has relied on Rule 15 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula etc.,) Rules, 1995, which indicates that any person could lodge a complaint with regard to the dispute.
3. However, on hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal.
4. The learned Single Judge on hearing the plea of the petitioners took note of the submissions of the respondents therein. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, there are a number of criminal cases pending and it is indulging in extortion activities. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the view that it is not the stage to decide the fate of the first petitioner, however the first petitioner is not an aggrieved person under the Rules before this court or the competent authority.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for appellant, we do not find any reasons to differ with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the fact that first petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved person, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is appropriate.
6. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, all pending applications do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.5 of 2017 and I.A.No.3 of 2017 stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Np/-