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.No.32449 OF 2016 (EDN-REG-P) BETWEEN :
SRI. UDAYA RAVI VIDYA SAMASTHE® REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DYAVAPPANA KOPPALU (VIDYUTH NAGAR) SALAGAME ROAD HASSAN-573201 (BY SRI.V.R.SARATHY, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS ...PETITIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN – 573102 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER ARAKALAGUD TALUK ARAKALAGUD HASSAN DISTRICT - 573102 (BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.18.4.2016 VIDE ANNEX-A PASSED BY THE R-4 AS THE SAME IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by respondent No.4-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.4/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.4/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.4 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.4.
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-A is quashed and writ petition is allowed. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.4 for re-consideration. Respondent No.4 shall proceed with the matter in terms of Section 39 of the Act.
5. At this juncture, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a proposal has now been submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.4 fulfilling the deficiencies pointed out and the same requires to be considered by respondent No.4 and if that be the position, the same shall be considered by respondent No.4 in accordance with law in an expedite manner.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ