Disposed

M/S Vijaya Film Institute (Regd) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC31 May 2024WP/3511/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a film institute seeking release of denied grant-in-aid. Court held that rejection based on pending enquiry is arbitrary if the enquiry report has not been acted upon for years. Directs respondents to act on the Lokayukta report within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to conclude the Lokayukta enquiry within six months or reconsider the grant release request within two months thereafter.

M/S Vijaya Film Institute (Regd) Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:18608 WP No. 3511 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF MAY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 3511 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S VIJAYA FILM INSTITUTE (REGD), HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.4 1^ST MAIN, 60 FEET ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, 4^TH PHASE, ABOVE CANARA BANK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079. REPT., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.E.V.KUMAR

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI P. D. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, by VALLI DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA, MARIMUTHU CULTURE AND INFORMATION, Location: High Court of VIKASA SOUDHA, Karnataka BENGALURU-01 REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION, No.17, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-01

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI N.B. PATIL, AGA)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:18608 WP No. 3511 of 2018

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER/COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 HEREIN DATED 25/27.11.2017 [ANNEXURE-W] WHEREIN THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION FOR RELEASE OF GRANT-IN-AID TOWARDS THE SECOND INSTALMENT FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-13 AND THEREAFTER FOR EACH ACADEMIC YEAR TILL THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2017-18 HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 HEREIN, ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUSLY AND OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri. P.D. Subramanya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. N. B. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

¶21

This petition seeking challenge to order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure - W dated 25/27.11.2017 bearing No.Va.Sa.Sum.E./E.M.M./E8/W.P.28484/2017-18.

¶22

The petitioner is a registered institute under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1960 to promote fine arts such as music, acting, dance and cultural programmes. It is stated that the State Government has accorded permission and recognition to the petitioner-Institution from the year

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18608 WP No. 3511 of 2018

¶24

1981-82 with the aid of the State Government. The curriculum for the courses conducted by the petitionerInstitution is prescribed by the Karnataka Secondary Education Board and course certificates are issued by the Board. The petitioner-Institution is governed by the Private Film Institutes (Films Acting and Play-back Singing) Grant-in-aid Code, 1978 for short 'Grant-in-aid Code, 1978'. The State Government has accorded permission and recognition to the petitioner-Institution from the year 1981-82 along with the aid in terms of Grant-in-aid Code, 1978.

¶25

It is submitted that in view of the recognition and Grant-in-aid accorded, the funds were allotted till first installment for the Academic Year 2012-13. However, from second installment for the Academic Year 2012-13 onwards, the State has not released the Grant-in-aid as required as per Grant-in-aid Code, 1978.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting

¶27

attention to various proceedings including multiple writ

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:18608 WP No. 3511 of 2018

¶30

proceedings before this Court submits that the earlier actions taken by the State have been set aside by this Court. No proceedings are pending against the petitionerInstitution requiring the State Government to withhold or release of the Grant-in-aid, which is pending for the Academic Year 2012-13 to 2017-18.

¶31

6. Learned counsel submits that though show-

¶32

cause notice was issued in view of the finding of the Karnataka Lokayukta in its report dated 26.07.2019 for recovery of Rs.66,02,224/-, the said notice has been replied and no adverse orders are passed. Insofar as other observations of the Karnataka Lokayukta no proceedings have been initiated. In the circumstances, the Annexure - W dated 25/27.11.2017 refusing to release the Grant-in-aid on the ground that the enquiry is pending as per the report of the Lokayukta is incorrect. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the Lokayukta is only an advisory to the Government, without taking any action on the said report, it is not permissible

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:18608 WP No. 3511 of 2018

¶34

for the State to refuse release of the Grant-in-aid. It is further submitted that even after lapse of six years, no action has been initiated by the State on the basis of the Lokayukta report.

¶35

Per contra, Sri. N. B. Patil, learned AGA appearing for the respondents submits that Karnataka Lokayukta in its report has recorded a finding on serious allegations regarding irregularities in violation of Grant-in-

¶36

aid Code, 1978 in relation to appointment of faculty, infrastructure and admission of the students. When an investigation report is available as submitted by the Karnataka Lokayukta on irregularities, it is not permissible to release the Grant-in-aid without concluding the enquiry as directed in the said report. It is further submitted that separate enquiry was conducted through Sri. K. A. Dayanand, KAS on the complaint filed by Sri. Ramesh Rao, which resulted in concluding that the petitioner has violated Grant-in-aid Rules.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:18608 WP No. 3511 of 2018

¶39

8. I have considered the rival contention of the

¶40

learned counsel for both the parties and perused the writ petition.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a registered Institute under Karnataka Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner has been accorded permission and recognition from the year 1981-82 along with the aid of the State Government. From the date of recognition, the Grant-in-aid has been extended till first installment for the Academic Year 2012-13.

¶42

It is on record that in view of the complaint regarding irregularities and violation of Grant-in-aid Code, 1978, different proceedings have been initiated and those proceedings were subject matter of writ petitions before this Court. The said decisions of this Court are not referred to, in view of the order to be passed in this petition.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:18608 WP No. 3511 of 2018

¶45

Karnataka Lokayukta has conducted enquiry and has recorded adverse finding against the petitionerInstitution regarding irregularities in admission, infrastructure, appointment of faculty and other aspects. The Lokayukta report dated 26.07.2019 has specifically pointed out the serious irregularities committed by the petitioner-Institution and has recommended the actions to be taken including that of recovery and also for conducting detailed investigation regarding management and affairs of the petitioner-Institution.

¶46

The respondent-authorities giving effect to the Lokayukta report has issued only a show-cause notice for recovery of Rs.66,02,224/-. As stated by the petitioner reply has been filed and the same is not concluded. It is not in dispute that as observed by the Lokayukta in its report, no enquiry has been initiated till date though report is of 2019.

¶47

Without taking any action on the Lokayukta report, even after lapse of five years, the impugned

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:18608 WP No. 3511 of 2018

¶49

communication/order has rejected the release of Grant-inaid due to pendency of the enquiry before the Lokayukta, which is concluded by report dated 26.07.2019.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that when Annexure-W dated 25/27-11.2017 has rejected release of the Grant-in-aid due to pendency of enquiry before the Lokayukta, the inaction of the respondents, either to take action on the basis of the Lokayukta report dated 26.07.2019 or to release the Grant-in-aid is an arbitrary exercise of power. Once the respondents rejected the release of Grant-in-aid due to pending enquiry before the Lokayukta, it is expected that the respondents to take action on the Lokayukta report and to consider the request of the petitioner for release of arrears of Grant-in-aid. The petitioner has made out a case for interference of this Court. Hence, the following:

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

The respondents are directed to take decision on the recommendations of the Karnataka

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:18608 WP No. 3511 of 2018

¶54

Lokayukta dated 26.07.2019 if intended and conclude the same within six months from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶55

If no action is intended on the Karnataka Lokayukta report dated 26.07.2019, within the time stated above, the respondents are directed to re-consider the request made as considered in Annexure - W dated 25/27-11-2017 within two months thereafter.

¶56

It is made clear that no opinion is expressed by this Court, which will have bearing on the action to be or if taken, on the enquiry report.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

VBS

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

M/S Vijaya Film Institute (Regd) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vijaya Film Institute (Regd) 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

Santhosh Kumar B S Vs Uco Bank

Sri Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Ummatturu Urkatheshwari Ammanavara Devasthana Mandali Vs State of Karnataka

S Umapathi S/O Late Subramanyam Vs the Central Information Commissioner

Sri. H. Srinivas Vs Shankar Patil

G K Kantharaju Vs the Public Information Officer