Konaria Shikshan Samsthe (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7284 WP No. 102804 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102804 OF 2025 (EDN-REG)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KONARIA SHIKSHAN SAMSTHE (R), BAGALKOT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MEHBOOB S/O. YAMANURSAB NADAF, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE R/O. KEMP ROAD, WARD NO.10, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ROOM 132, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587111.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

¶18

(i) SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.02.2025 IN NO. NIL, REJECTING THE APPLICATION ONLINE APPLIED FOR RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION IN RESPECT OF THE SCHOOL RADHA KERSARI ENGLISH HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, BAGALKOT, PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7284 WP No. 102804 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AS PER ANNEXURE-K, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RENEW THE RECOGNITION OF THE SCHOOL RADHA KERSARI ENGLISH HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, BAGALKOT FOR THE YEAR 2023-24 AND 2025-26.

¶22

(ii) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NO. G1/SHA SHI I/KHA PRA SHA/ANADHIKRUTA/SHALE /MANA/2024-25/4174, PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE WP AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶26

This petition is filed by the petitioner-Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act wherein the Society is running a private educational institution in the name of Konaria Shikshana Samsthe which was called as Alok Education Society, Bagalkot. There is no dispute with regard to the registration of the society and the school being initially registered from 1^st standard to 3^rd standard and thereafter from 1^st standard to 8^th standard under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983(hereinafter referred to as ‘the KE Act’, for short). The school was

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7284 WP No. 102804 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

initially run within the premises of the Bagalkot Cement Company and Industries limited. Permission and recognition was renewed from time to time.

¶30

This being the state of affairs, the school building came under the backwaters of UKP. Hence, the school, with the consent of the owner of the property, was shifted to a new building in R.S. No.194/1 measuring 3 acres 1 gunta coming within the campus of the Bagalkot Cement and Industries Limited. The petitioner-school sought for approval of recognition for the year 2024-25 and applied to the DDPI by way of online submission of application but the application of the petitioner came to be rejected as ‘renewal recognition closed’. Respondent No.3 got issued a show cause notice on 18.03.2025 to the petitioner as to why the registration of the school should not be cancelled under Section 34 of the KE Act and on several grounds stated therein. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice by stating that no conditions stipulated by respondent No.3 are violated and to cancel the order of non-recognition. The petitioner,

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7284 WP No. 102804 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

aggrieved by non-renewal of recognition for the academic year 2024-25, is before this Court on the ground that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and same is violative of the principles of natural justice and so also no opportunity was given to the petitioner to set right the alleged defects/deficiency so urged in the show cause notice and also the short comings.

¶34

It is the case of the petitioner that, when the respondents have entertained and extended the recognition and renewal from time to time without there being any shortcomings or violations of any of the terms and conditions, suddenly not renewing or canceling recognition for the academic 2024-25 is arbitrary, as the petitionerinstitution is run for many decades and careers of several students would be put to jeopardy. Hence, the petitioner seeks to allow his petition to quash and set aside the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 for non-renewal and permit the school to be run by renewing the recognition applied online by the petitioner.

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7284 WP No. 102804 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. P.N. Hatti, representing the State, vehemently contends that the petition itself is not maintainable on the ground that, the impugned order which is passed is in accordance with law and the Authority which has passed the impugned order is capable and entitled, on the strength of the statute, to pass the orders. Therefore, there is no issue of jurisdiction.

¶38

Secondly, he submits that the petition is not maintainable, as there is alternative efficacious remedy to the petitioner to exhaust under Section 130 of KE Act before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by the learned Government Pleader Sri. Hatti that, a show cause notice has been issued in advance to which the petitioner has replied. Therefore, the principles of natural justice is followed before passing the impugned order. Under the circumstances, he contends that, when there is an alternative, efficacious remedy available to the petitioner and no grounds having been made

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7284 WP No. 102804 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

before this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is an extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, the petitioner may be relegated to the Appellate Authority to exhaust its remedy. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

I have heard the learned counsel Sri.S.B.Hebballi, the learned Government Pleader Sri. P.N. Hatti, perused the impugned order, the documents placed before this Court and the provisions of Section 130 of KE Act.

¶43

There is no dispute with regard to Section 130 of KE Act. It is also not in dispute that the respondentAuthority has passed an order of non-renewal of recognition to the petitioner-institution for the reasons stated in the show cause notice. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction or competency of the Authority is not questioned. What is questioned is, the principles of natural justice not being adhered to by the respondents and that there are hundreds of students in the school who would be effected due to the impugned order.

¶44

7 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7284 WP No. 102804 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Be that as it may. Section 130 of KE Act is clear

¶48

as to any person aggrieved by an order passed by an Officer or Authority under the Act, may within prescribed period prefer appeal to the prescribed Appellate Authority. In the present case, the impugned order is passed by an Officer/Authority i.e. the 3^rd respondent-DDPI which is an Authority constituted under the Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in passing the impugned order. This Court has earlier held that though the rule of audi alteram partem may not be a ground to reject the petition and remit it to the Appellate Authority, in the present case, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the impugned order is passed of non-renewal of recognition for the academic year 2024-25, this order would come under the purview of Section 130 of KE Act to be challenged before the appellate authority. A similar issue had come up before this Court in Writ Petition No.8877/2021¹ and this Court had taken a view that the

¶49

1 Disposed of on 19.08.2021

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7284 WP No. 102804 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

parties be relegated to the Appellate Authority for redressal of their grievance.

¶53

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner-institution is running from the year 1972 wherein hundreds of students are studying. If interim protection is not provided to the petitioners, there will be serious damage to the students studying in the Institution who are unaware of the proceedings and who are not responsible for the renewal by the Management of the Institution and they would be put to difficulty for the fault committed by the Educational Institution.

¶54

Accordingly, I pass the following

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The petition is disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to prefer an appeal challenging the impugned order. In the meanwhile, no precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioner-Institution for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶57

9 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7284 WP No. 102804 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

In the event of the petitioner fling an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the appellate Authority shall consider all the grounds that are taken by the petitioner before this Court and any other additional grounds and documents and so also show leniency with regard to the students who are already enrolled and who may not be responsible for the action of the petitioner-Management, in accordance with law.

¶61

Ordered accordingly.

¶62

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶63

kmv CT-MCK

Konaria Shikshan Samsthe (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konaria Shikshan Samsthe (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Prakash Galemmanavar Vs State of Karnataka

Basawwa Tatawati D/O Virupaxappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Skytown Builders and Developers, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

B R Mangasuli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M M Shankrappa S/O Muniyappa Vs the Managing Director

R.S. Enterprises, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of