IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P.No.51642 OF 2018 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN SRI T LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O THIPPAIAH, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL), RESIDING AT DOOR NO.2369, 9TH MAIN ROAD, MCC ‘A’ BLOCK, BEHIND SAIBABA TEMPLE, DAVANAGERE – 577004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE – 577 001.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DAVANAGERE NORTH RANGE, DAVANAGERE – 577 001.
5. THE SECRETARY, DR. RAJAKUMAR VIDYA SAMSTE, NO.23/3, H.C.GALLI, NEAR VITTALA MANDIRA, BASAVARAJAPETE, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE R-5 FOR RUNNING THE SCHOOL IN AN UNAUTHORIZEDLY CONSTRUCTED SCHOOL BUILDING WITHOUT GETTING PRIOR PERMISSION FROM THE STATE GOVERNEMNT AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS DTD:16.7.2018, 4.8.2018 AND 20.8.2018 AT ANNEXURE-G, G1, AND G2 RESPECTIVELY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner claiming to be the adjoining owner of the respondent school building, has given representations at Annexures – G, G1 & G2 dated 16.07.2018, 04.08.2018 and 20.08.2018 making certain allegations against the running of the school in question, contrary to the provisions of law. The said representations having remained unresponded, the petitioner is before this court seeking a direction for their consideration.
2. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Smt.Pramodhini Kishan on request, having accepted the notice for respondents makes submission resisting the Writ Petition stating that the scheme of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Rules made therein do not assign a role to the adjoining land owner or creates a cause of action in favour of the petitioner in the circumstances pleaded in this Writ Petition and therefore, in the absence of a legal right, he needs to be non-suited. Having submitted so, the learned counsel now submits that there would be no much difficulty in considering the representations of the petitioner, in accordance with law, if a reasonable period is prescribed by this court for such consideration. The submission of the said counsel is fair and the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous. There is no other reason to deny the said prayer.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to Respondent No.3-DDPI to consider petitioner’s representations dated 16.07.2018, 04.08.2018 and 20.08.2018 at Annexures – G, G1 & G2 respectively, within a period of eight weeks and further to inform the petitioner forthwith, the result of such consideration.
It is open to the answering respondent to seek or solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as are necessary for due consideration of the aforesaid representations, subject to the rider that no delay would be brooked in that guise.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc