IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.3117 OF 2014 AND 5341-5377 OF 2016 (EDN-REG-P) BETWEEN:
THE RAJIV GANDHI B.ED., COLLEGE OPPOSITE TO CANARA BANK, UTHANUR-563 127, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.UTTANUR SRINIVAS, SON OF LATE VARADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 127.
(BY SRI.G.PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NARAYANA SWAMY P M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE BENGALURU UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI, KENGERI, BENGALURU, BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR-560 060.
... APPELLANT 2. THE BENGALURU UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI, KENGERI, BENGALURU, BY ITS REGISTRAR, (EVALUATION)-560 060.
3. M/S. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, HANS BHAWAN, WING-II, 1, BAHADURSHAHZAFAR, MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
4. M/S. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, 1ST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BENGALURU-560 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR-560 001.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UNIVERSITY), KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR RESPONDENT No.5 SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2 SRI. BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.3 AND 4) THESE WRIT APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.37073/2013 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.59283- 59319/2013 DATED 30/04/2014.
S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.37073 of 2013 and W.P.Nos.59283-59319 of 2013, by which, the writ petitions were disposed off, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-T/Resolution of the Southern Regional Committee of 3rd respondent withdrawing the recognition of B.Ed course run by the petitioner-College and for a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 for affiliation to the petitioner-college for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The petitioner-college is run by Uthanoor Education Society. It is stated that the 3rd respondent National Council for Teachers Education (‘NCTE’ for short) by its order dated 01.02.2005 granted recognition to run B.Ed course from academic Session 2004-05 with an intake of 100 students. It is further stated that the petitioner-college is affiliated to Bangalore University. The College is being run in a rented building at Mulabagal, Kolar District. One of the conditions of affiliation was that the petitioner institution shall have its own building. As the said condition was not fulfilled, the admission of the students was not approved, against which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37388 of 2011 before this Court, which came to be allowed by the order dated 10.10.2012 granting three months time to the petitioner to remove the deficiency as pointed by the NCTE and thereafter NCTE to inspect the petitioner-institution. It is stated that the petitioner shifted the institution to its own building at Uthanoor, Mulabagal Taluk, i.e. premises in old Kaneshumari No.166/167, new No.163/1 measuring 150 x 300 feet and old Kaneshumari No.163A/167, new No.163/2 measuring 40 x 60 feet consisting of Ground and First floor.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said lands were granted by Uthanoor Grama Panchayath on 09.12.1991. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6160/2013 and W.P.Nos.7840-7884/2012 seeking permission to admit the students in terms of the earlier order of this Court. The said writ petitions were stated to have been allowed on 11.02.2013. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued letter on 09.04.2013 for inspection of petitioner-institution. It is stated that the petitioner also made representation to the respondents on 15.05.2013 to grant permission to write B.Ed. examination as directed by this Court in W.P.No.6160/2013. As the 3rd respondent-NCTE and first respondent-Bangalore University failed to consider the representation, the petitioner again filed writ petition No.22375/2013 and W.P.No.22648-682/2013 which were disposed off with directions to the first respondent- University and the Government to consider the petitioner’s case for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2012-13 and other directions were issued insofar as academic years 2012 and 2013 are concerned. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the NCTE had passed orders withdrawing the recognition of the B.Ed. course form the academic session 2010-11, run by the petitioner-college. Challenging the said withdrawal the petitioner filed the instant writ petitions.
4. The learned Single Judge disposed off the writ petitions with an observation that if the petitioner obtains necessary title, it would enure to the benefit of the students and the results of those students shall be announced and shall be awarded degrees, if so warranted. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred these appeals.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsels for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in disposing the writ petitions without properly appreciating the fact that the petitioner had constructed building on the site allotted by the Uthanoor Grama Panchyath, which would satisfy the condition imposed by the 3rd respondent-NCTE. The students have taken examination during the pendency of the petitions and their results are withheld in view of the dispute of recognition.
7. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents would submit that the petitioner-college was granted affiliation and permission was given to run B.Ed course with an intake of 100 students with a specific condition that the petitioner shall have its own building within a specified period. But, the building in which, the college is run by the petitioner is not in the name of the petitioner, thereby the petitioner has failed to fulfill the condition. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeals.
8. The petitioner-Institution is run by Uthanoor Education Society at Uthanoor, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District. The 3rd respondent NCTE by order dated 01.02.2005 granted recognition to the petitioner-college to run B.Ed course with an intake of 100 students. The condition on which, the recognition was granted to run B.Ed course was that the petitioner-college to have its own building to run the B.Ed course. The petitioner-college admitted before the learned Single Judge that the building in which it is running B.Ed college is not transferred in its name, but there is only a resolution passed by the Panchayath to transfer the same in its favour. Admittedly, there is no title deed in the name of petitioner in respect of the land and building. As such, the learned Single Judge noting the provisions of Section 50 of the Mysuru Village Panchayaths and Local Boards Act, 1959 was of the view that the property is not transferred to the petitioner by way of sale. Therefore, it is held that there is no compliance of requirement imposed by the 3rd respondent- NCTE. It is for the petitioner to get the transfer of land in its name from the Panchayath. Unless the said formality is completed, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that it is running the college and B.Ed course in its own building. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in disposing off the writ petitions with the observations that if the petitioner obtains necessary title in its favour, it would enure to the benefit of those students and the results of those students shall be announced. As the petitioner- appellant has failed to demonstrate before this Court that the land and building in which the college is being run stands in its name, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief sought in the writ petitions. We are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither erroneous nor unreasonable so as to call for interference. No good ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms