IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.7971-7997 OF 2019 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN :
SRI. GAVI RANGANATHASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL GAVI RANGAPURA HOSADURGA TALUK ADMINISTERED BY SRI. GAVI RANGANATHASWAMY SAHAKARA VIDYA SAMSTHE GAVI RANGAPURA HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA – 577 527 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. L.RANGAPPA S/O. SRI LAKSHMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O. STADIUM ROAD PRASHANTH NAGAR CHITRADURGA – 577 501 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.V.HIREMATH, ADV.) AND :
1. THE SECRETARY II GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION) OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS CHITRADURGA – 577 501 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER HOSADURGA TALUK HOSADURGA – 577 527 5. THE SECRETARY S.S.L.C BOARD 8TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OM DTD:16.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-5 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LETTER DTD:4.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-5 AS PER ANNEXURE-H BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by respondent No.3-Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI), whereby, the petitioner- institution has been directed to close the institution, in view of the withdrawal of the recognition for non- compliance of the mandate of Section 39(2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. It is not in dispute that the notices were issued by the Block Education Officer calling upon the petitioner- institution to show cause inasmuch as withdrawal of the recognition for non-compliance of maintaining the requisite strength of the students in terms of Section 39(2) of the Act. However, respondent No.3/DDPI has passed the order impugned herein. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the order impugned is not in consonance with the Act. In terms of the provisions of the Act, respondent No.3/DDPI is the Competent Authority to pass orders under Section 39(2) of the Act, if that being the position, it is mandatory on the part of the said authority to issue show cause notice if any, relating to the said subject matter. On the other hand, respondent No.3 delegated the power to the Block Education Officer to issue notice which is Ex facie illegal and the same cannot be sustained. On this ground alone, the matter requires re-consideration by respondent No.3.
3. It is also apparent that the procedure required to be followed by the competent authority in terms of Section 39 of the Act, as regards, withdrawal of the recognition is not duly complied with.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order at Annexure-G is quashed and writ petitions are allowed. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.3 for re-consideration. Respondent No.3 shall proceed with the matter in terms of Section 39 of the Act.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ