IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI W.P. NOs.37516/2014 & 43756/2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SREE VEERABHADRESHWARA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL BIKKODU POST AND VILLAGE BELLUR TALUK AND VILLAGE BELLUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 215 BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.I.D.DHARMAPPA S/O.SRI.E.S.DODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT INTITHOLALU KESAGODU POST-573 215 BIKKODU, BELLUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 2. SRI.E.D.HAREESH S/O.SRI.I.D.DHARMAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT INTITHOLALU KESAGODU POST-573 215 BIKKODU, BELLUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M.P.SRIKANTH, FOR SRI.PARTHASARATHI M.S., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 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 INSTRUCTIONS HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT (BY SRI.SREEDHAR N.HEGDE, HCGP) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 26.03.2014 PASSED ON APEEAL NO.1/2013 BY THE R-3 DPI VIDE ANN-AE AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioners have sought for amendment of prayer and it was allowed. Consequently their prayer is, quashing order dated 26.3.2014 passed on Appeal No.1/2013 .
2. Learned counsel for the State vehemently contended that present petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners have not exhausted remedy of statutory of Revision under Section 131 of the Education Act before the State Government against the order of Director of Public Instructions.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners while countering the arguments of the State submitted that there is no efficacious remedy since order passed by the Director of Public Instructions is without application of mind and violation of Principle of natural justice. Hence, writ petitions are maintainable.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Question for consideration in the present petitions is whether without exhausting the statutory remedy of Revision under Section 131 of the Education Act, 1983 is maintainable or not?
6. Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006 paragraph-20 held has under:
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage form City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s.Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others(6), wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed question of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) The petition reveals all material facts;
(c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) Grant of relief is against public police or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors”
(Underline emphasized) 7. The aforesaid decision relates to under what circumstances, writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, in the case of Kuntesh Gupta Vs Management of Hindu Kanya reported in 1988 SCR (1) 357 relates under what circumstances without exhausting remedy of writ could be entertained. One of the principles laid down is if any action is by the incompetent authority. The petitioners do not satisfies the criteria in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. Hence, petitioners are not made out a case so as to entertain the petitions.
8. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to invoke revisional remedy under Section 131 of the Education Act. In the event of making any revision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the Revisional Authority is hereby requested to pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the petitioners revision petition.
9. The time spent by the petitioners before this Court may be taken note for the purpose of condoning the delay and entertaining the revision petition by the Revisional Authority.
Sd/- JUDGE BS