Dismissed

Gupta College v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022WP/8803/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners sought to quash a communication denying affiliation recommendation and directed the State to recommend an undergraduate degree course in Animation and Multimedia. The court noted that the relief for the 2021-22 academic year could not be granted due to technical shortcomings regarding land extent and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Relief for academic year 2021-22 dismissed; open for representation regarding academic year 2022-23.

Gupta College Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP NO.8803 OF 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.8803 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GUPTA COLLEGE RUN BY GUPTA EDUCATION TRUST NO.838, 100 FEET RING ROAD, HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SRI. B.S. GUPTA S/O SRINATH GUPTA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶9

SRI. APOLLOS PUN S/O KRISHNA BAHADUR PUN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS LODHONA BAZAR, DARJEELING, WEST BENGAL – 734 221.

¶10

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. PRAVEEN J. S/O JASVIN J. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS NO.7/557, SHANTHI STORES, TRICHY MAIN ROAD, PONGALUR – 641 667.

¶12

SRI. R. KRUTHIK REDDY S/O H.L RAVI PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS KOTAPPANAHALLI, NAGARAGERE, GAURIBIDNUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR, KARNATAKA – 561 228.

¶13

¶14

WP NO.8803 OF 2022

¶15

SRI. HITESH MEHRA S/O JEEVAN RAM MEHRA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS NOONDRI MALDEV, UDAIPUR ROAD, CHUNGI NAKA, BEAWAR, AJMER, RAJASTHAN – 305 901. 6. SRI. SACHIN MANEY S. S/O R. SATHYA NARAYANA RAO MANEY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS NO.56/57, MAGAR WADA, 6^TH ‘B’ CROSS’ BALAJINAGAR, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶16

NIHAR B.S. S/O SHASHIDHAR B.S. AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS NO.103, 1^ST FLOOR, SAPTHAGIRI RESIDENCY-3, PAPAIYA GARDEN, BANGIRI NAGAR, BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶17

SAGAR GAOWDA T.C. S/O LATE CHANDRASEKHAR T. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS NO.47, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, BASAWESHWARA BADAVANE, ANDRAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SMT. KUMARI M., ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

WP NO.8803 OF 2022

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES), M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶24

BENGALURU UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS, BENGALURU – 560 056. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17^TH MARCH, 2022 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS/PROCEEDINGS THERETO; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECOMMEND FOR GRANT OF AFFILIATION FOR ADDITIONAL COURSE TO THE PETITIONER NO.1-INSTITUTION TO CONDUCT BACHELOR OF VISUAL ARTS (ANIMATION AND MULTIMEDIA) DEGREE COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2021-22 UNDER THE RESPONDENT NO.2-UNIVERSITY CONSIDERING THE REPORT OF THE LIC OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2-UNIVERSITY VIDE ANNEXURE-D; AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Heard Smt. Kumari M., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; and

¶31

¶32

WP NO.8803 OF 2022

¶33

Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sugay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-University.

¶34

In this petition, petitioners have challenged the communication of the respondent No.1 made with respondent No.2-University dated 17^th March, 2022 (Annexure-F), wherein it is stated about the short comings of the consideration of affiliation recognition made with regard to the petitioner No.1College. It is stated in the impugned letter dated 17^th March, 2022 that the application of the petitioner No.1-College cannot be considered in view of the short comings raised by the respondent-University in the letter dated 31^st January, 2022 (Annexure-R1), in view of the petitioner-college having a short coming with regard to the extent of land as required in terms of the circular issued by the respondent No.1-Government. I have also noticed that the said application made by the petitioner-College, is with regard to the Academic year 202122. Accordinlgy, at this juncture the relief sought for cannot be extended to petitioners. However it is open for the petitionerCollege to make a representation to the respondent No.1Government as well to respondent No.2-University, seeking

¶35

¶36

WP NO.8803 OF 2022

¶37

affiliation and recommendation for the Academic year 2022-23. If such a representation is made by the petitioner-College, the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

ARK

Gupta College v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gupta College v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt Nagarathnamma College of Nursing Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

M/S. Kay Kay Agro Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Registrar of

Sri N Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Associated Managements of Primary and Vs State of Karnataka

The Mandya Town House Building Vs the Additional Registrar of