Dismissed

Gouthama Buddha Education Society v. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2021WP/13650/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order refusing grant-in-aid to a school. The Court held it could not go into disputed questions of fact regarding infrastructure and student numbers as the petitioner failed to produce counter-documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to file necessary application when requirements are satisfied.

Gouthama Buddha Education Society Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.13650/2009 (EDN-RES)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gouthama Buddha Education Society Sri Sharana Basaveshwara High School Nagavi, Taluk-Sindagi, District-Bijapur Represented by its President

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Smt. Hema L. Kulkarni, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Department of Secondary Education, M.S. Building Bangalore - 560 001

¶13

The Commissioner for Public Instructions, Dharwad

¶14

The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bijapur

¶15

The Block Education Officer Sindagi, Bijapur District

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)

¶18

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the GO No.ED.157.SEW.2006 dated 20.08.2007 - Annexure-G passed by the first respondent, issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to implement the GO dated 07.03.2003 as Annexure-A and extend the grant in Aid Facility to the petitioner High School from the academic year 2003-04 and onwards as per the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Karnataka Education Act and further issue directions to the respondents to consider and dispose of the application-Annexure-H dated 31.03.2009 for renewal of the recognition of the petitioner’s High School and grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2007 bearing GO No.ED.157.SEW.2006 (Annexure-G to the writ petition), wherein the respondents have refused to consider the petitioner institution for grant-in-aid, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶23

¶24

By order dated 07.05.2003, the petitioner institution was admitted to grant-in-aid by the respondents. However, by order dated 28.07.2003, the said order of grant-in-aid was sought to be withdrawn. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.13473/2005. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner institution to furnish particulars to the respondents as required by them along with their objections and the first respondent was directed to consider the same in accordance with law. The respondents passed an order dated 20.01.2006, withdrawing the order of admitting the petitioner institution for grant-in-aid. That was again challenged by way of writ petition No.2717/2006. As the representation of the petitioner was not considered properly, the said writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondents have passed the impugned order vide Annexure-G to the writ petition, wherein they

¶25

¶26

have refused to admit the petitioner institution for grantin-aid on the ground that there is no proper infrastructure, no sufficient number of students and that the school is not being conducted regularly. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the said order.

¶27

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶28

the petitioner that the impugned order is bad in law, because the petitioner institution have the necessary infrastructure, sufficient number of students and that the school is being run regularly.

¶29

Attention of the Court is drawn to Annexure-D, which is a reply to the show cause notice and is given by the petitioner to the respondent, wherein they have stated that the allegations made against them are erroneous.

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that the averments made in Annexure-D reply are far from truth and upon inspection they found that the school lacks the necessary infrastructure and did not have sufficient number of students and at the time of

¶31

¶32

inspection they had got children who were not the students of the said institution and the Teachers did not have the necessary qualifications.

¶33

Apart from making an allegation that the said findings of respondents are erroneous, the petitioner has not produced any document to show it otherwise. Moreover, this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into disputed question of facts.

¶34

For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out any ground for interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Hence, the following

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶38

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make necessary application to the respondents as and when it

¶39

¶40

satisfies the requirements and the respondents shall

¶41

consider the case in accordance with law.

¶42

No order as to costs.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

LG/sn

Gouthama Buddha Education Society v. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gouthama Buddha Education Society v. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh Motors, Yadgir Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Rajashekhar S/O Sayabanna Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Sri. Basavaraj S/O Hanumanthappa Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Subhash Vs the Registrar and Anr.

The Executive Engineer (E) Vs Venkappa S/O Balakrishna Vajantri

Pandappa Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.