IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT W.P NO.37213 of 2018 & W.P. NOs.54962-54967 OF 2018 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN OM SRI MARUTHI SEVA TRUST BORANA KANIVE, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI. O.S. NARENDRA MURTHY, S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, LAKKENAHALLI, HOYSALAKATTE POST, C.N. HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 571 604. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TUMKUR SOUTH, B.M.ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 102.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 571 604. ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE RULE 2 OF THE AMENDED RULES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NOTIFICATION IN THE GAZETTE ON 08.03.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-W AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner-Trust which has been running an educational institution allegedly for catering to the needs of rural population is calling in question the vires of Rule 2 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, whereby the requirement of making the applications on-line is prescribed. It is also sought for quashing of the Circular dated 26.03.2018 at Annexure-V and the endorsements issued on several dates as per Annexures-D, E, M, P & L, whereby its request for registration of the institution has been denied.
2. The respondents after service of notice having entered appearance have filed a Statement of Objections on 06.02.2019 opposing the writ petition inter alia contending that the petitioner-Trust has been unauthorizedly running the primary school by name ‘Sri Maruti Seva Vidya Mandira Kiriya Prathamika Shale’ at Boranakanive village despite warning against the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Rule to the extent it prescribes only on-line application for grant of permission/registration for establishing the educational institutions is unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable in the sense of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ as expounded by the Apex Court in the case of SHREYA SINGHAL vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2015 SC 1523 and therefore is liable to be quashed. Since the endorsements are the consequential actions, they too need to be set at naught. He also submits that the impugned endorsements are liable to be quashed inasmuch as they have been issued earlier to the amendment and contrary to law.
4. Per contra, learned AGA Smt. Pramodini Kishan submits that a ‘Rule’ is an instrument of law having been promulgated by the State Government being the delegate under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983; a lot of experience and the wisdom gained therefrom enter the making of the Rules and therefore in the absence of a cogent case of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ being established, the Rule cannot be set at naught; when the whole world is moving towards development of Information Technology, it is strange that the petitioner-Trust shuns the same; what the Rule requires is an application for permission/registration being made on-line instead of through papers. Thus arguing the learned AGA seeks dismissal of the writ petition stating that the impugned circular and the endorsements cannot be faltered on any ground.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents. Straightaway the prayer for quashing of impugned Rule cannot be favoured in the absence of any factor constituting a ‘manifest arbitrariness’ in terms of Shreya Singhal Case is established. The fact that allegedly the village in which the school is sought to be established does not have internet facility apart from being bit difficult to believe, is a poor ground for invalidating a delegated legislation. Nothing comes in the way for the petitioner-Trust to avail the internet facility in some other nearby place for making the on-line application.
6. The learned AGA is also broadly in agreement that if the petitioner makes a fresh application on-line with all the required information and records, the same would be considered by the authorities in accordance with law and in a time bound manner, regardless of whatever is stated in the impugned circular and endorsements. This stand of the State is fair.
7. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsements dated 18.02.2017 at Annexure-D, dated 28.02.2017 at Annexure-E, dated 16.07.2018 at Annexure-M, dated 09.08.2018 at Annexure-P and dated 16.07.2018 at Annexure-L; petitioner is permitted to make on-line application for permission/registration for the school in question and if the same is made in the prescribed form along with prescribed fee, the respondents 2 & 3 shall consider the same after giving an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law.
No costs.
MBM Sd/- JUDGE