Allowed

Jain Heritage School v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023WP/24449/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a private unaided school challenging the constitutionality of specific sections of the Karnataka Education Act as applied to such institutions. The court held that these provisions are unconstitutional and declared that the named authorities lack jurisdiction to干涉 fee fixation, quashing a complaint and notices issued against the school.

What did the court decide?

Sections 48, 5A, 112A, and 124A declared unconstitutional as applied to private unaided institutions; jurisdiction of respondents quashed; complaint and notices quashed.

Jain Heritage School Vs State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 24449 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

JAIN HERITAGE SCHOOL A SCHOOL RUN BY SRI BHAGAWAN MAHAVEER JAIN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST AT ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL BENGALURU - 560 024 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL JOLLY JOSEPH

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI PRADYUMNA K.V. FOR SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶11

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 2^ND GATE, 6^TH FLOOR M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

DISTRICT LEVEL EDUCATION REGULATING AUTHORITY KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶14

¶15

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶16

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 001

¶17

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER NORTH ZONE-4 YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064

¶18

D.CHANDRA PRIYA W/O.T.DEVA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.166, 1^ST MAIN 8^TH CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 024

¶19

NEENA BENNI W/O.LATE BENNI BABU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT B-701, NAGARJUNA ASTER PARK NEW TOWN YELAHANKA BENGALURU – 560 065

¶20

RAJASHEKAR T. S/O.TRIYAMBAKESHWAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.9/1, SRI KRISHNA NILAYA GROUND FLOOR, R.T. NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032

¶21

PUTTARAJU B.C. S/O.CHOWDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.597 (OLD NO.26) 14^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN DOLLARS COLONY RMV 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 094

¶22

¶23

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶24

NARENDRA KUMAR S/O.L.V.S.MURALI BABU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.203, BLOCK ‘B’ HOYSALA ACE ACRES SAHAKAR NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092

¶25

SAJI MENON W/O.VIPIN RAJAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.30/A 2^ND MAIN, KALATHUR LAYOUT GANGAMMA CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 013

¶26

NANDAN B. S/O.BHASKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.156, 3^RD CROSS TELECOM LAYOUT JAKKUR BENGALURU – 560 064

¶27

MAHESH

¶28

S/O.RANGAPPA H.C. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.407 BALAJI LEGENDS APARTMENT 4A CROSS, AMURTHNAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092

¶29

RAGHAVENDRA KULKARNI S/O.ANANT RAO KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.A-1301 MAITRI ASTRA APARTMENTS HENNUR MAIN ROAD NEAR HENNUR BANDE CHILKERE VILLAGE BENGALURU – 560 043

¶30

¶31

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶32

SUNIL RAI M. S/O.SUNDAR RAI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.304 SSVR FAIRYBELLS APARTMENT 2^ND CROSS, 4^TH MAIN SAHAKARA NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 092

¶33

MALLIKARJUN GOUDA S/O.VEERANA GOUDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.B1, ‘G’ BLOCK SAHAKARANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092

¶34

KRISHNAKUMAR J. S/O.JANANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.9/1, 2^ND FLOOR 4^TH CROSS, KANAKA NAGAR R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 032

¶35

SRINATH S.S. S/O.SRIKANTH SARALAYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.32 YAUVNUVDONE LAYOUT KEMPAPURA HEBBAL BENGALURU – 560 024

¶36

SONIA MODI W/O.ADITYA MODI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT A-111 CLASSIC ROYAL GARDEN NEAR DMART HENNUR CROSS BENGALURU - 560 043

¶37

5 - WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶38

DOMO DANISHA MINU W/O.VIMAL KING MOSES DHAS S.D. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.111, 1^ST FLOOR 11^TH ‘A’ CROSS BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR KEMPAPURA, H.A.FARM PO HEBBAL, BENGALURU – 560 024

¶39

B.GANGADHAR S/O.B.N.NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.C-704 ARVIND SPORCIA RACHENAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 077

¶40

REENA SWAMINATH URS W/O.PRADEEP RAJU SIBBAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.76 1^ST MAIN LOTTEGOLLAHALLI RMV 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 094

¶41

SHILPA H.R. W/O.JAGDISH K.V. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.153, SAI NILAYA 15^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN TELECOM LAYOUT, JAKKUR BENGALURU – 560 064

¶42

HARSHA B.K. S/O.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.124 10^TH CROSS ’G’ BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 092

¶43

PRAVESH PUGALIA S/O.KEWAL CHAND PUGALIA

¶44

¶45

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶46

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.3071 PRESTIGE MISTY WATERS HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA BENGALURU – 560 024

¶47

KISHEN N. S/O.LATE K.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.1058/1, 4^TH CROSS K.N.EXTENSION K.NAGARAJ ROAD YESHWANTHAPUR BENGALURU – 560 022

¶48

RAMASWAMY KUDALLUR S/O.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN K.R. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT B31, ‘B’ WING M.V.PERIWINKLE ROYAL ENCLAVE SRIRAMPURA, JAKKUR BENGALURU – 560 064

¶49

INDUMATI M. W/O.PRABHU K.A. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT TF-02, 10^TH MAIN COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA BENGALURU – 560 024

¶50

NANDINI W/O.PRABHAKAR B.C. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.220 PYRAMID GREENWOOD APARTMENT NEAR AYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD SHABARINAGAR BYTARAYANAPURA BENGALURU -560 092

¶51

¶52

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶53

SHILPA NAGAVARA W/O.SHASHITEJ GURURAJA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.109E, 5^TH MAIN 5^TH CROSS, NGEF LAYOUT SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 094

¶54

HEMANTH K.A. S/O.ANAND K.M. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT ‘KAVERI’, NO.308 5^TH A MAIN, 3^RD CROSS 2^ND BLOCK, KALYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043

¶55

DR.VIJAYA KUMAR PANTANGI S/O.DR.P.V.RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.22 PLOT NO.38, B SECTOR AMRUTHNAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092

¶56

AJITH KUMAR VARMA S/O.K.RAVI VARMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.A006, SIROYA ENVIRON ANANDE NAGAR, HEBBAL BENGALURU – 560 024

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT SECTION 48 OF THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983 AND THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 2017 INSERTING SECTIONS 5A, 112A AND 124A TO THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983 AND MAKING THE SAME APPLICABLE TO PRIVATE UNAIDED EDUCATIONAL

¶60

¶61

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶62

INSTITUTIONS BY SECTION 1(3)(iii-a) OF THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983 AS UNCONDITIONAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The petitioner-School has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:

¶65

“a) Declare that Section 48 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Karnataka Education (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 inserting Sections 5A, 112A and 124A to the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and making the same applicable to private unaided education institutions by Section 1(3)(iii-a) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 as unconstitutional;

¶66

b) Declare that Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.4 do not have the jurisdiction to interfere in matters relating to fixation of fee by the Petitioner;

¶67

c) Quash the complaint dated 04.05.2022 filed against the Petition school by Respondent No.5 to 32 before Respondent No.2 (Annexure-F);

¶68

d) Quash the notice dated 10.11.2022 bearing No.C1/A.Kha.Sha./Shu.Dooru-20/2021-22 (AnnexureL), the notice dated 22.11.2022 bearing No.C1/A.Kha.Sha./Shu.Dooru-20/2021-22 (AnnexureN) and the notice dated 03.12.2022 bearing

¶69

¶70

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶71

No.C1/A.Kha.Sha./Shu.Dooru-20/2021-22 (AnnexureQ) issued by Respondent No.4 to the Petitioner;”

¶72

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶73

The petitioner-School is a private unaided educational institution being run without any aid from the Government and the fees collected from students is being used to defray the expenses incurred in running the School. In 2020, Covid-19 pandemic swept across the world and working of educational institutions also came to a grinding halt. The State Government directed all the Schools to collect 70% of the tuition fees for the academic year 2020-2021. The Government order was challenged and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by issuing number of directions.

¶74

2.1 Respondent Nos.5 to 32 are the parents of the students studying in different classes in the petitioner-School. During the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 20222023, the majority amongst respondent Nos.5 to 32 did not pay the School fees fixed, either partially or fully. However, the petitioner-School did not take any coercive steps and ensured that the education of the children were not disrupted in any manner. After the commencement of classes, despite

¶75

10 -

¶76

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶77

reminders, the parents refused to pay the outstanding School fees on a false pretext.

¶78

2.2 When things stood thus, instead of paying the fees fixed by the petitioner-School, respondent Nos.5 to 32 lodged a false and frivolous complaint on 04.05.2022 against the petitioner-School before respondent No.2. The complaint primarily raises the issue relating to fixation of fee. Pursuant to filing of the complaint dated 04.05.2022, respondent Nos.5 to 32 filed a writ petition in WP.No.12591/2022 (EDN-RES) before this Hon’ble Court on 21.06.2022 seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to dispose of the complaint dated 04.05.2022 within a period of three months. This Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02.08.2022 has disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to consider the complaint dated 04.05.2022 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of one month. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.2 and 4 are hearing the complaint dated 04.05.2022 on merits, despite the objections raised by the petitioner-School in its reply dated 02.11.2022 and 16.11.2022. Hence, this writ petition.

¶79

11 -

¶80

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶81

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is a settled law that private unaided educational institutions have autonomy over the administration of the School, admission of students, fees to be charged etc. The Courts have also held that the institutions can fix the fee structure and that the same can also include reasonable revenue surplus for development of education and expansion of the institution. Therefore, the petitioner-School has autonomy with regard to issue of School fee and can take an appropriate decision with regard to fee to be charged. The complaint is an attempt to interfere with the internal affairs of the School and impinge on the autonomy of the petitioner-School.

¶82

3.1 Learned counsel further contends that the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short ‘the Act’) are not applicable to the petitioner-School except Sections 5A, 48, 112A and 124A of the Act. It is submitted that Section 48 of the Act imposes a restriction on educational institutions in collection of fees, charges and other payments and provides arbitrary powers to the State to regulate the fixation of fees. The applicability of Sections 48 and 124A of the Act to private unaided educational institutions like the petitioner-School is an

¶83

12 -

¶84

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶85

attempt to interfere with the autonomy of the institutions and runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶86

3.2 It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 05.01.2023 in WP.No.6313/2017 (EDN) and connected matters has dealt with this matter in detail.

¶87

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶88

The aforesaid order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court is squarely applicable to the fact and circumstances of this case, wherein this Court has held as under:

¶89

“46. Having come to the conclusion that the private unaided educational institutions are outside the purview of Section 48 of the Act, any such proceedings conducted by the District Education Regulatory Authority under Section 2(11-A) of the Act, is not applicable to the private unaided educational institutions in respect of the proceedings that fall under Section 48 of the Act.

¶90

47. It is also to be noted that, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ petition No.27432 of 1995 and connected petitions, arrived at the conclusion

¶91

13 -

¶92

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶93

that Rule 4 of the Rules 1999 are ultra vires and therefore, following the dictum of the Division Bench, challenge made to the said Rule in the present writ petitions, governs the dictum of the Division Bench. It is to be noted that by virtue of impugned Notification dated 08^th March, 2018, Rule 4 of Rules 1999 was substituted and in view of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has held that Section 7(1)(f) of the Act is unconstitutional in respect of the private unaided educational institutions, suffice to say that as Rule 4 of the Rules 1999 relates to Section 7(1)(f) of the Act and therefore, Rule 4 of Rules 1999, independently, cannot sustain and there is no nexus between the impugned provisions vis-àvis the object to be achieved by the respondentGovernment, as the object of the private unaided educational institutions is to inculcate newer dimension to the educational prospects to the students from the inception level itself. Considering the need and demand for quality education, inter alia, enhancing the personal development of the students in the school requires to be considered while fixing the fee by the private unaided educational institutions. However, the private unaided educational institutions, so also, the respondent-Government shall not ignore the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION. Constitution of India limits these

¶94

14 -

¶95

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶96

private unaided educational institutions and the respondent-Government; and they shall not cross the Lakshman Rekha as laid down under T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION case. The cardinal rule would be to act just, fair and reasonable while formulating the fee structure, so that, no child would be deprived of elementary education in this welfare State, to fulfill the dreams of founding fathers of the Constitution of India. Dreams of children shall run in reality of their blood and heart. Therefore, Rule 4 of the Rules 1999 ought to be held unconstitutional and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, I have carefully noted the reasons assigned by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ petitions and having come to the conclusion that the respondent-State Government has no role to interfere with the fee fixed under Section 48 of the Act in respect of the private unaided educational institutions, Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 which provides for fine for violation; and Rule 10 of Rules 1995 which provides for collection of fees, are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and outside the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in respect of private unaided educational institutions.”

¶97

Since this matter is covered by the aforesaid order,

¶98

this Court would not want to delve into the legal aspect of the

¶99

15 -

¶100

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶101

matter in detail as the same is elaborately dealt by a Coordinate Bench in WP.No.6313/2017 (EDN) and connected matters. In view of the same, this writ petition will have to be allowed in terms of the aforesaid order rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶102

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶103

ORDER

¶104

i) This writ petition is allowed, in terms of order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.6313/2017 (EDN) and connected matters;

¶105

ii) Section 48 of the Act and the Karnataka Education (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 inserting Sections 5A, 112A and 124A of the Act and making the same applicable to private unaided educational institutions by Section 1(3)(iii-a) of the Act, is declared as unconstitutional;

¶106

iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 4 do not have the jurisdiction to interfere in the matters relating to fixation of fee by the petitioner;

¶107

16 -

¶108

WP No. 24449 of 2022

¶109

iv) The complaint dated 04.05.2022 filed against the petitioner-School by respondent Nos.5 to 32 before respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F, is hereby quashed; v) Notices dated 10.11.2022 vide Annexure-L, dated 22.11.2022 vide Annexure-N, dated 03.12.2022 vide Annexure-Q issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

¶110

Sd/JUDGE

¶111

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Jain Heritage School v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jain Heritage School 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

Lrs of Wahid Baig Vs Sri Chamaraju

Smt. S Sandya Vs Sri Raghavendra C

Sri.M.Koteshwara Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Mohammed Maaz Shariff Vs the Robin Hood Project Trust

Smt. G Sheela Vs Dr. Chandrashekar S D

Basappa S/O Mallappa Ganiger Since Deceased by His Lrs Gourawwa W/O Chennaveerappa Matti and Other Vs the Assistant Commissioner and Others