IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.55165/2018 (EDN-RES) Between:
1. Sri. Vinayaka Education Society (Regd.) Having its office at Siddaramanagara extension, Hosadurga Town, Chitradurga District – 577 527. Represented by its Secretary S. Basappa, S/o. Siddaramaiah, Aged about 71 years.
2. Sri. Vinayaka Composite Junior College, Malali, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District – 577 527. Represented by its Principal P.T.Shantharaju, S/o. Thippeshappa, Aged about 52 years.
…Petitioners (By Sri. A.V.Gangadharappa, Adv.) And:
1. Government of Karnataka, Secretary to Government, Education department, Pre-University Education, Multi-storied Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Director of Pre-University Education, 18th cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 012.
3. Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Department of Pre-University Education, Chitradurga – 577 501.
...Respondents (By Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, AGA for respondents.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records and proceedings of the case; quash the order dated 4.7.2018 issued by the R-2 true copy of which is produced as Annexure-E, etc.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. A.V.Gangadharappa and the learned AGA for the respondents.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the second respondent, order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the first respondent and the order dated 30.11.2018 issued by the third respondent.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the reply/objections to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent has not been properly considered and the order is passed rejecting the reply/objections sans application of mind. It is submitted that no reasons are assigned by the second respondent for arriving at a decision in rejecting the reply in which the petitioners have comprehensively indicated compliance of the defects pointed out by the official respondents, in as much as recognition of the Pre-University college is concerned. Further, the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners blindly, without considering the material placed on record by the petitioners along with the reply/objections filed before the respondent No.2. Accordingly, he seeks for setting aside the orders impugned herein.
4. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents, justifying the orders impugned, would submit that no material evidence was placed on record by the petitioner to establish the required compliance in terms of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Rules framed there under. Hence, the authorities/respondents are justified in rejecting the request of the petitioners for renewal of the recognition sought for.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and perused the material placed on record.
6. It is evident that the order passed by the respondent – Committee at Annexure `E’ to the writ petition dated 04.07.2018 is a non-speaking order. It is a well-settled law that it is obligatory for the quasi judicial authority to assign reasons in arriving at a decision. The reasons are the soul and heart beat of an order. Any order passed, without assigning reasons, is an order without life. In other words, it is an order void ab-initio which cannot be approved. The Appellate Authority also failed to consider this aspect, particularly with reference to the material placed on record by the petitioners along with reply/objections before the second respondent. In the circumstances, the endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 to cancel the recognition of the petitioners’ college, with effect from the academic year 2018-19 cannot be sustained in law. Hence, these impugned orders are set aside and the proceedings are restored to the file of the second respondent, to consider the matter afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
7. Petitioners are at liberty to place additional material evidence in support of their claim. The second respondent shall consider the same if filed, along with the reply/objections already filed, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in an expeditious manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE mgn/-