IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.53635/2014 (EDN – RES) BETWEEN :
NEXGEN EDUCATION TRUST, (REGISTERED) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.320, AIYAPPA SOCIETY, MANDAPURA HYDERABAD-81 MANAGING SRI.CHAITANYA TECHNO SCHOOL SITUATED AT No.21 (108), 22, 8TH MAIN ROAD 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE/SECRETARY VAMSHI KRISHNA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI MULTI STORIED BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BANGALORE NORTH TALUK K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001.
3. THE KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560010 REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (IES) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.B.SATYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI.M.SUDHAKAR, ADV FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2014 MADE BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, BESIDES GRANTING OF ANY OTHER RELIEF. ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.11.2014 issued by the first respondent, marked as Annexure-E to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is a public charitable trust.
The petitioner has made an application for granting permission of recognization and registration of the school named as Sri Chaitanya Techno School. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Block Education Officer has inspected the school building and has given the report to the first respondent, recommending grant of recognization for the petitioner school. Accordingly, certificate was issued by the first respondent on 19.03.2014 permitting the petitioner to run the school, to impart education to the students from standards I to V in Kannada medium. In pursuance to which, the petitioner commenced the primary school for the academic year 2014-15. The petitioner contends that 163 students were admitted and 15 qualified teachers were appointed to impart education to the students. Most of the students are residing in the neighborhood of the school. Such being the case, the first respondent without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, proceeded to issue an order dated 13.11.2014 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) derecognizing the school run by the petitioner. The said order is impugned in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel Sri.P.D.Surana appearing for the petitioner, placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of MUNINANJAPPA.L AND OTHERS V/S. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (WRIT APPEAL NOS.3135 – 3137/2010 (LA-KIADB) (D.D ON 20.11.2012), would contend that Section 2(6) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘Act’, for short) defines ‘Industrial area’ to mean any area declared to be an industrial area by the State Government by notification which is to be developed and where industries are to be accommodated and industrial infrastructural facilities and amenities are to be provided and includes, an industrial estate. By virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section (2), Government of Karnataka has issued a notification dated 13.03.1991 specifying what are the amenities for the purposes of the Act which specifically provides R & D centers, technical institutes, training institutes, Educational Institutions. In such circumstances, the second respondent derecognizing the school only for the reason that the BBMP had sanctioned the plan to run/construct the building for the industrial training institute and not for a school is untenable. It is further contended that while considering the said notification dated 18.03.1991 issued by the Government of Karnataka, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the amenity as provided under Section 2(6) of the Act includes Educational Institutions. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the second respondent while passing the impugned order.
4. Learned Government Advocate Sri.R.B.Satyanarayana Singh, appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts as the permission was granted by the BBMP to run/construct the industrial training institute. However, the petitioner while obtaining permission had only submitted the sketch of the building. On enquiry, it was brought to the notice of the respondents i.e., sanction plan for construction of industrial training institute was misrepresented and the building was used to run the school, in violation of the conditions of the sanction plan.
5. Learned counsel Sri.M.Sudhakar, appearing for the impleading applicant/respondent No.3 submits that the intention of the Government is to establish the small scale industries for creation of employment. The sole intention of allotting the industrial sheds is only for the purpose of running the industries. The allottees shall have no power to alter or change the nature or usage of the premises. The petitioner suppressing the true facts obtained the permission to run the school which has been considered by the respondent No.2, appropriately in derecognizing the school for suppressing the true facts, as no school can be run in an industrial area.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record.
7. It is the plea of the petitioner that recognization and registration was granted by the respondents No.1 and 2 to run the school from standards I to V in Kannada medium school after holding an inspection. It is not in dispute that the school premises is an industrial area. The question whether an education institution can be permitted to run in an industrial area is not considered by the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order in the right perspective more particularly with reference to the provisions of the Act. It is also the grouse of the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter in the light of the Judgment and Order in Writ Appeal Nos.3135-3137/2010.
9. Annexure-E to the writ petition is quashed.
The matter is remanded to respondent No.2. All contentions are left open for the parties to urge before respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 shall hear the petitioner as well as the third respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
10. The respective parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 24.06.2017 at 3.00 p.m., without waiting for any notice. Till then, the petitioner shall not be disturbed to run the school, as the petitioner had the benefit of an interim order of stay during the pendency of the writ petition.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC