IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.35216 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
MR. V. RANJITH SHANKAR S/O DR. VILASINI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT #402 E WING MITTAL TOWER RESIDENCY #06, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
(By Mr. SHIJU ABRAHAM VERGHIS, ADV.) AND:
1. MRS. ARCHANA VISHWANATH W/O MR. VISHWANATH MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS PRINCIPAL, JAIN HERITAGE SCHOOL SRI ANJANAYE SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BANGALORE KARNATAKA STATE -560 024.
… PETITIONER 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHIKSHA KENDRA 2 COMMUNITY CENTRE PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110 092.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. S. SRIRANGA, ADV., FOR R1 V/O DT:29.7.15 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXPLAIN PROPERLY IN WRITING, WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO KUM. VISHNU SAKTHI SHANKAR ON 20TH MARCH, 2014, WHO WENT TO THE JAIN HERITAGE SCHOOL, HEBBAL, BANGALORE, HALE AND HEALTHY IN THE MORNING AND WAS FOUND WITH LOTS OF GRIEVOUS INJURIES AND FRACTURES IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN THE PETITIONER WENT TO SCHOOL TO RECEIVE HIS CHILD BACK AFTER HER 3RD STANDARD EXAMINATIONS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Shiju Abraham Verghis, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.S.Sriranga, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to explain properly in writing, what had happened to Kum.Vishnu Sakthi Shankar on 20th March, 2014, who went to the Jain Heritage School, Hebbal, Bangalore, hale and healthy in the morning and was found with lots of grievous injuries and fractures in the afternoon when the petitioner went to school to receive his child back after her 03rd standard examinations.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that by a communication dated 22.05.2014, Annexure-B, the information as sought for by the petitioner has been furnished to him and in case the petitioner is aggrieved, he may take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to ascertain the same.
5. Be that as it may, this Court, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate the questions of fact. Besides that, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition is already granted to him as the information has already been supplied to him. Needless to state that the petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV