Disposed

Sahyadri College of Engineering and Management v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2024WP/2945/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An engineering college challenged a Fee Regulatory Committee order which stated that no objections had been filed despite the college having submitted a reply to the Committee's notice. The High Court set aside the impugned order as violative of natural justice and directed reconsideration after considering the objections; the consequential order was stayed meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Committee directed to reconsider hearing the petitioner's objections; Annexure-B consequential order not to operate till fresh orders passed.

Sahyadri College of Engineering and Management Vs… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12208-DB WP No. 2945 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2945 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SAHYADRI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT SAHAYADRI CAMPUS MANGALORE TALUK AND DISTRICT, MANGALORE - 575 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL PROF SIDARAMAPPA SHIVANNA INJAGANERI, S/O SHIVANNA INJAGANERI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE, KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, 18^TH CROSS SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM.

¶18

MOHAMMAD NOWFAL, S/O P S MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO POOMAN HOUSE K C NAGARA, KC ROAD TALAPADY MANGALORE,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:12208-DB WP No. 2945 of 2024

¶21

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 023.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI M N SUDER HEGDE - GA FOR R1, SRI OMKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI ABDUL ANSAR P, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND a) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING IT AS BAD AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE REPORT/ORDER DATED 12.05.2023 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN KEA/FRC/04/2022-23 (PER ANNEXURE-A). b) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING AS UNENFORCEABLE THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2023 BEARING No NIL PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT (PER ANNEXURE-B).

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶28

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in response to the notice issued by the Regulatory Committee, the petitioner had submitted Annexure - 'M' reply dated 28.02.2023 which was received by the Regulatory Committee on the same day. It is submitted that serious contentions had been raised in the objections filed before the

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12208-DB WP No. 2945 of 2024

¶30

Committee. However, the impugned order was passed on 12.05.2023 where it is stated that no objections had been filed by the petitioner inspite of receipt of notice. It is therefore contended that the order passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner which was on record before the Committee is liable to be set-aside as being violative of principles of natural justice and the matter is to be reconsidered after considering the objections as well.

¶31

We have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Regulatory Committee and learned counsel for respondent No.3 as well.

¶32

In view of the fact that the objections had evidently been filed as evidenced by Annexure - 'M' which was received by the Committee on 28.02.2023 and since the impugned order records that the petitioner had not responded to the notice, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Committee.

¶33

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set-aside. The Committee is directed to hear the matter taking note of the objections raised by the petitioner as well and pass

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12208-DB WP No. 2945 of 2024

¶35

appropriate orders in accordance with law. Needless to say that Annexure - B which is a consequential order, shall not operate till orders are passed by the Regulatory Committee.

¶36

Writ Petition disposed of accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

BRN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sahyadri College of Engineering and Management v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahyadri College of Engineering and Management 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Salman Ali Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B. P. Mahendri @ Chithra Vs Sri. T. N. Nagananda

Mr. Mohammed Azar Bolar Vs Mrs. Farha Banu

Mrs Girija Patel Vs Mr Vijay R Rao

Murthy N Vs Smt. Kalavathy Alias Gangamma