IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.3034 OF 2019 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
OM SRI MARUTHI SEVA TRUST BORANA KANIVE CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTIRCT REPORESENTED 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 DISTRRICT – 572 218 (BY SHRI SRIKANTH M.P., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 ... APPELLANT 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICERS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE – 560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE – 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTUCTIONS TUMKUR SOUTH B.M. ROAD TUMKUR – 572218 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572218 6. NGS EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST (R) BORANAKANIVE (HOYSALA KATTE) CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE - 572218 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 PASSED ON W.P.NO.21685/2019 (EDN-RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. In this appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 9th July 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant. The prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the Registration Certificate granted to the sixth respondent in respect of a school in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification and Registration) Rules 1997 (for short ‘the said Rules’). It is must be noted here that the said Rules were amended by the notification dated 7th March 2018. The unamended Rules provided for making the applications for registering the educational institutions on or before 31st October of the year preceding the every academic year in which the educational institution is intended to be started. By the amendment carried out by the notification dated 7th March 2018, there was a provision made for making online application on IT portal of the Department on or before 30th November preceding the academic year in which the educational institution is to be started.
3. The present appellant had filed earlier Writ Petition No.37213 of 2018 challenging the validity of Rule 2 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) (Amendment) Rules 2018. By the order dated 18th February 2019, the challenge in the said writ petition to the rule was rejected. While rejecting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellant was permitted to make online application for registration of the educational institution under the said Rules.
4. Even according to the case of the appellant, for the academic year 2019-20, the time to apply for registration was extended till 21st February 2019. The appellant is relying upon the representations including the representation dated 23rd April 2019 requesting the respondents to open the online portal and permit it to file the online application under Rule 3 of the said Rules. Prior to that on 7th March 2019, another representation was made requesting the respondents to allow the appellant to file online application. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuing a writ of mandamus directing consideration of the said representation dated 23rd April 2019 and another representation. The challenge was also to the registration certificate granted to the sixth respondent on 28th February and 29th October 2018.
5. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order rejected the petition on the ground that the appellant failed to avail the opportunity granted to make online application. The learned Single Judge also observed in paragraph 10 that the paper publication furnished by the appellant depicts that the appellant’s school comes under the authorised schools list of pre-primary schools.
6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is firstly that the appellant was prevented from making online application as the order in writ petition dated 18th February 2019 was not immediately available and by the time the said order became available, the time extended by the circular till 21st February 2019 was already over. His submission is that it is the Department of the Government which did not comply with the statutory rules. He submitted that undue favour has been shown to the sixth respondent as the registration was granted belatedly to the sixth respondent on 28th February 2018 and 29th October 2018.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions. Even going by the stand taken by the appellant, the amended Rule provided for making an online application by 30th November. Even during the pendency of W.P.No.37213/2018, the petitioner could have applied for registration. Nothing prevented the appellant from making online application during the pendency of the said writ petition. The appellant could have always applied without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the pending writ petition.
8. After the order was passed in the said earlier writ petition on 18th February 2019, for the first time, a representation was made by the appellant on 7th March 2019 which was followed by the representations dated 23rd April and 24th April 2019. Assuming that the time was further extended as contended by the State before the learned Single Judge till 13th March 2019 and assuming that the appellant was prevented from making online application as the portal was not open, nothing prevented the appellant from approaching the Writ Court immediately and to seek relief of a writ of mandamus. What is more pertinent is that in the writ petition subsequently filed on which the order impugned has been passed, there are substantive prayers for quashing the registration granted to the sixth respondent and for directing consideration of the representations dated 23rd April 2019 and 24th April 2019.
9. According to us there is no explanation as to why the appellant did not approach the Writ Court immediately after making the representation dated 7th March 2019. In any event irrespective of the fact that the online portal was opened or not, even during the pendency of the earlier petition filed by the appellant, nothing prevented the appellant from making an application under Rule 3 of the said Rules for registration.
10. Moreover, in the present petition, there is no prayer based on the refusal of the respondents to open the portal.
11. Thus, there is a failure on the part of the appellant to apply online for registration for which there is no explanation. It is not the case of the appellant that even till 21st February 2019, the applications could not be filed as the portal was not open.
12. After having failed to apply for registration of the educational institution, the appellant has no locus to complain about the registration granted to other institutions. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
13. The pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and the stand disposed of.
.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB