Dismissed

Bajju Stephen v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2023WP/5578/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners through a writ petition challenged the State Government's circular directing private unaided schools to refund overcharged fees or waive fees at 85%. The single judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the State has no power to interfere with fee fixation under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 for private unaided institutions in light of Apex Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no direction was issued to the respondents to refund fees or enforce the circular on private unaided schools.

Bajju Stephen Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.5578 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BAJJU STEPHEN

¶9

S/O LATE K F STEPHEN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT 14/2 CHICKANAYAKANAHALLI CARMALRAM POST BENGALURU - 35

¶10

JUJU GEORGE S/O MR.GEOGY

¶11

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶12

RESIDING AT 1A 303, SUNCITY GLORIA

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

CAMELARAM SARJ BUAPUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 035

¶15

DALY JOSEPH S/O JOSEPH MAPRAKAVIL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶16

RESIDING AT 1B 902, SUNCITY GLORIA CARMELARAM SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 035

¶17

NILESH CHAWLA S/O MR.S C CHAWLA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT A-2093

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶20

ASSETZ EAST POINT BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU - 560 103

¶21

S SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O K SOMANATHAN NAIR AGED 47 YEARS RESIDING AT 127 EAST TRINITY ACRES AND WOODS SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 102

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI.AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶25

THE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶26

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT NORTH ZONE

¶27

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶28

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶30

KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS 4^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON

¶31

HARVEST INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL POST SILK FARM, VILLAGE OFF SARJAPUR RD CARMELARAM KODATHI BENGALURU - 560 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SMT.KAVITHA H.S, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4 (MA NOT FILED) SMT.GEETHA M, ADVOCATE FOR R.5; SRI.S.BASAVARAJU, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.GOUTHAM A.R, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R.1 TO R.5 TO ENSURE THAT THE R.6 COMPLIES WITH THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR DATED 15.11.2021 VIDE ANNX-K AND REFUNDS THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THEM AND ETC.

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶36

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The captioned writ petition is filed by the parents of the students, who are pursuing schooling with respondent No.6 - school and the following directions are sought at the hands of this Court, which read as under;

¶40

"1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st to 5^th respondent to ensure that the 6^th respondent complies with the Government Circular dated 15.11.2021 bearing No.Si7(2) PraShiAa:1TaRe:80/2020-21 (placed as Annexure-K) and refunds the additional amount collected by them.

¶41

2. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 1^st to 3^rd respondent to issue an order directing the 6^th respondent and other private schools to collect tuition fee of only 85% for the academic year, 2021-22 and to ensure that the petitioners are not charged for the facilities in the school that are unused.

¶42

3. Grant such or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case as also

¶43

- 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶44

compensation for their losses and costs in the above in the interests of justice and equity ."

¶45

In the light of law laid down by the Co-ordinate

¶46

Bench in batch of these petitions bearing W.P.No.6313/2017 c/w W.P.Nos.33161/2017, 47074/2018, 47077/2018, 5072/2019, 6185/2019, 9149/2019, 11657/2019, 14703/2019, 6396/2020, 15241/2021, 15268/2021 and 16418/2021, I am of the view that the relief sought in the captioned writ petition cannot be maintained at this juncture.

¶47

The petitioners are seeking refund of tuition fees based on the Circular issued by the State Government vide Annexure-K. The Circular vide Annexure-K, which is in continuation of the Circular vide Annexure -B, is issued by exercising powers under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The amendment to Section (1)(3) (iii-a) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and has held that

¶48

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶49

Notification issued by the respondent - State in furtherance of Section 5-A, and 112A of the Act as well as Section 48 are ultra vires the Constitution of India and contrary to law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AVINASH MEHROTRA (2009)6 SCC 398 . The

¶50

law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in batch of these petitions and the operative portion reads as under;

¶51

"(i) Writ petitions are allowed;

¶52

(ii) Sections 2(11-A), 48, and 124-A of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 are contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and are held to be unconstitutional insofar as private unaided educational institutions.

¶53

(iii) Sections 5-A and 112-A of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 are contrary to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as well as the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AVNIASH MEHROTRA [(2009)6 SCC 398].

¶54

(iv) Any such notification issued by the respondent-State in connection with Sections 2(11-A), 48 and 124-A of the Act is held to be

¶55

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶56

ultra vires in respect of the private unaided educational institutions;

¶57

(v) Any such notification issued by the respondent-State in furtherance of Sections 5- A and 112-A of the Act, is held to be unconstitutional in view of declaration of Sections 5-A and 112-A of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India and contrary to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of AVINASH MEHROTRA [(2009)6 SCC 398].

¶58

(vi) Rule 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(c) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation, Prescription of Curricula etc.) Rules, 1995; and Rule 4, and 7 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of certain Fees and Donations) Rules, 1999, are not applicable to the private unaided educational institutions.

¶59

(vii) Any such proceedings initiated by the respondent - authorities under the aforementioned provisions against such private unaided educational institutions which are held to be unconstitutional in the present writ petitions, stand terminated in view of the observation made in these writ petitions. .

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶61

¶62

I am given my anxious consideration to the

¶63

judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 - School.

¶64

The Coordinate Bench while examining the challenge made to Section 48 of the Karnataka Education Act placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A.Pai Foundation has come to the conclusion that respondent-State has no role to interfere with the fee fixed under Section 48 of the Act in so far as private aided educational institutions are concerned. The Coordinate Bench proceeded to strike down Section 48 as unconstitutional and outside the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as private un-aided educational institutions. The batch of writ petitions allowed by Coordinate Bench in the reported judgment held Section 2(11-A), 48 and 124-A of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and unconstitutional insofar as private unaided educational institutions. If the Coordinate

¶65

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶66

Bench placing reliance on the principles laid down by the Apex Court has come to the conclusion that private unaided educational institutions should not be under control of respondent-Government insofar as fixing of fee is concerned, no mandamus can be issued in the present case on hand. Petitioners are not legally entitled to seek waiver of tuition fees and respondent-State by way of executive order cannot issue direction to the private unaided educational institutions to waive off the tuition fees.

¶67

The educational institutions recognized by the Council of Indian School Certificate Examination or Central Board cannot be subjected to the conditions indicated in Sections 54, 48, and 112A of the Education Act, 1983. The circular issued by the State Government calling upon the private un-aided educational institutions to waive off the tuition fees is not supported by any law and therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to issue mandamus.

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:24761 WP No. 5578 of 2022

¶70

Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶71

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

NBM

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Bajju Stephen v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajju Stephen 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Vijayakumar Vs the Station House Officer

Sri Arthur James Lobo @ a J Lobo Vs Sri Mujeebur Rehaman

Mr Syed Ali Sheriff Shahul Hameed Vs M/S Sindhu Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd.

Alvas Homeopathic Medical College Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri.Kenchappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka