Allowed

Shree Devi Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2022WP/14981/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders rejecting a school registration application. Quashing the impugned orders, the Court directed the State to register the petitioner school within four weeks, relying on zoning regulations and explaining that specific land conversion for education is not required if zoning permits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Respondents directed to register the school and issue certificate within four weeks of the order.

Shree Devi Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.14981 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHREE DEVI EDUCATIONAL TRUST BEARING REG. NO.BK IV 152/2013-14 (A NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES)

¶7

OFFICE AT: NO.18/1, GROUND FLOOR, 13^TH CROSS, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560001 THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES

¶8

REPRESENTED BY MR. SANJAY L (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE PETITIONER) REGISTERED UNDER TRUST ACT,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K ARUN KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. LAVKESH B., ADVOCATE FOR MS. CHETHANA K N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, ROOM NO.320, 3^RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 KARNATAKA – 560 001.

¶13

2 . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001

¶14

²

¶15

3 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NORTH DIVISION, CENTRAL JUNIOR COLLEGE COMPOUND, BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560009

¶16

4 . GOVERNMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT, 2^ND GATE, 6^TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560001

¶17

5 . BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER NORTH DIVISION, BANGALORE NORTH, 250, KAMARAJ ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560051

¶18

....RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1-R5)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 03.10.2021 ANNEXURE-C, 15.03.2022 ANNEXURE-C1 AND 24.04.2022 ANNEXURE-C2 PASSED BY THE R2 ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO THREE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGISTRATION OF ITS PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ETC.

¶21

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following

¶24

reliefs:

¶25

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/direction/order in the nature of a quashing/setting aside the Impugned orders dated 03.10.2021 (Annexure-C), 15.3.2022 (Annexure-C1) and 24.4.2022

¶26

³

¶27

(Annexure-C2) passed by the Respondent No.2 issued with respect to three applications filed by the Petitioner for registration of its Primary School.

¶28

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Declaration or any other appropriate writ/direction/order declaring the acts of the Respondent No.2 in passing the rejection orders dated 03.10.2021 (Annexure-C), 15.3.2022 (Annexure-C1) and 24.04.2022 (Annexure-C2) passed by the Respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary in the eyes of law.

¶29

c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction order directing the Respondent No.2 to decide the primary school applications preferred by the petitioner in a time-bound manner, keeping in view the Government Order bearing No.EP 76 PGC 2022 dated 15.7.2022 (Annexure-M) issued by the Respondent No.3 vide which new school / colleges / educational institutes have been given a relaxation of one (1) year to comply with the requirement of land conversion.

¶30

d) Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

⁴

¶32

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner

¶33

and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶34

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the material on record in order to submit that the subject property is being used for the purpose of running petitioners’ educational institution in respect of the application dated 24.07.2021 for registration of the Institution for the academic year 2021-22 along with relevant documents viz., Trust Deed, land documents etc. Since the said application was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 03.10.2021, petitioners made one more application dated 15.02.2022 seeking registration of its Institution, which was also rejected by the respondents vide impugned Order dated 15.03.2022 without assigning any reasons. Subsequently, petitioner submitted one more application dated 11.04.2022 seeking registration of its school, which was also rejected

¶35

⁵

¶36

vide impugned order dated 24.04.2022. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary, Department of Education and Literacy addressed a communication dated 15.07.2022 granting a period of one year from the date of opening the portal to submit conversion certificate. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶37

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned rejection orders at Annexure-C, C1 and C2 suffer from various legal infirmities in as much as despite the petitioner submitting and uploading all relevant documents, the respondents have erroneously rejected the petitioner’s application on the incorrect ground that the same have not been submitted by the petitioner. Further, the respondents have erred in not taking into account the communication dated 26.08.2022 between the State Government and the Department of Education and other documents in this regard. So also, under the revised RMP 2015 and the Zoning Regulations issued under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, the subject

¶38

⁶

¶39

land has been permitted to be used for educational institutions. It is therefore submitted that the impugned rejection order, apart from being a non-speaking and an unreasoned order is contrary to law and the material on record and deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents for the purpose of granting registration in favour of the petitioners.

¶40

Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Statement of Objections and referring to the material on record, would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained and submitted all relevant documents clearly establish that the said documents having been obtained and submitted by the petitioner, the respondents clearly committed an error in rejecting the application of the petitioner on the erroneous and incorrect premise that the documents mentioned in the

¶42

⁷

¶43

rejection order had not been submitted or uploaded by the petitioner. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that the respondents have passed the impugned order rejecting the application on the sole ground that the property had not been converted for educational purposes. The said reasoning recorded by the respondents is contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Nexgen Educational Trust Vs. State of Karnataka – (2020) SCC OnLine KAR 1647 , wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that so long as an educational institution was being run on a property designated and permitted for educational purposes under the CDP/RMP and the zoning regulations, there is no requirement for conversion specifically for educational purposes. In this context, learned Senior counsel is also correct in his submission that the material on record also establishes that the subject premises has been permitted to be used for educational purposes under RMP 2015 and the Zoning Regulations. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that apart from the fact that the impugned rejection order at Annexure-C, C1 and C2 is not

¶44

⁸

¶45

only a cryptic, laconic, unreasoned and a non-speaking order, which has been passed by the respondents without assigning cogent or valid reasons and without application of mind, the reasons forthcoming in the order are contrary to the material on record as well as the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula etc.) Rules, 1995, Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification and Registration) Rules, 1997 and other relevant rules and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents for registration of the school within a stipulated timeframe.

¶46

7. In the result, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶49

(ii) The impugned orders at Annexure-C dated

¶50

03.10.2021, Annexure-C1 dated 15.03.2022 and AnnexureC2 dated 24.04.2022 passed by the respondents are hereby quashed.

¶51

⁹

¶52

(iii) Respondents are directed to register the educational institution/school of the petitioners and issue registration certificate and other documents in this regard and permit the petitioner to operate the same from the academic year 2022-23 onwards, in terms of Section 31 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the relevant rules in this regard, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

(iv) Liberty is however reserved in favour of the respondents to call upon the petitioner to produce additional documents, if any, in accordance with law.

¶54

(iv) It is further directed that till respondents comply with this order, respondents shall not take any precipitative / coercive steps against the petitioners or the subject educational institution/school of the petitioners.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

SV/Bmc

Shree Devi Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Devi Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Abhishek M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L Lohith Vs State of Karnataka

Ms.Ananya Jain Vs St.Xavier College

Sri.Manjunath Ramakrishna Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vasista Tevanidarara Sangha (Regd) Vs Ministry of Finance

Sri S R Vijay Shekar Vs the State of Karnataka