M/S Shanthinikethana Education and Social Welfare Society (R.) Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10306 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S SHANTHINIKETHANA EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY (R.) NO.39, "YASHAS", 11^TH MAIN, 'D' CROSS, SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION TUMAKURU-572101. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PUSHPA D. W/O RAJANNA D AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS E-MAIL: [email protected]

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY/ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, INDIAN RED CROSS BHAVAN, NEAR CHURCH CIRCLE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

ASHOKA ROAD TUMAKURU-572101 [email protected]

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2020 PASSED IN NO.MA MA E-03, MA MA AA-2020 BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA WHICH IS INTIMATED ON 17.07.2020 VIDE LETTER BEARING NO.UU NI TU:MA.MA.AA:BA.VA.NI:425:202021, VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT/DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, TUMAKURU, WHO HAS INTIMATED CLOSURE OF GIRLS HOSTEL RUN BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No. ªÀÄªÀÄE

¶25

03 ªÀÄªÀÄC 2020, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated 13.07.2020 passed by

¶26

respondent No.1 by which it closed down the girls hostel run by the petitioner from the year 2020-21. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

respondents to allow it to run girls hostel and release the grant amount withheld by the respondents and to ensure the release of the grants in time in accordance with law.

¶30

(i) The petitioner contends that it is a non-profit organization which was established in the year 2001 with an objective to provide hostel services for poor women and to help in their education and upliftment in the society. It claims that it was affiliated to the Department of Women and Child Development, who had granted aid for providing suitable accommodation for girls with good hygienic food, water, electricity, toilets, amenities etc., It contends that it had total strength of 50 and all the inmates were selected through an interview conducted by a Committee consisting of the petitioner, respondent No.3 as the President, one Women Welfare Officer of the Department of Women and Child Development, Child Development Project Officer, Tumakuru, Taluk Health Officer and Block Education Officer. The petitioner contends that the respondents used to do routine checks to know the working condition of the hostel.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

(ii) The petitioner contends the selection committee met on 12.07.2019 and found that students admitted in 201819 were in the hostel and were continued for the year 2019-20, out of 29 students, 27 attended the interview and they were granted admission. The other two who did not appear for the interview due to domestic reasons were also to be considered later. Later, fresh applications were called for on 15.05.2019 in response to which 33 had filed applications. Interview was conducted for 21 vacancies and 20 were selected and one absentee was also selected. As per the guidelines issued by the Government for Karnataka dated 22.05.2019, the respondent No.3 was required to send the first installment bill on or before 15.06.2019. However, the respondent No.3 belatedly sent the bill to respondent No.2 for extraneous consideration and to harass the petitioner. The petitioner contends that respondent No.3 had released grant for 45 inmates of the girls hostel on 27.08.2019, 22 inmates on 16.11.2019, 44 inmates on 11.02.2020 and 34 inmates on 11.03.2020. It therefore, contends that payment of release was discriminatory and arbitrary. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file a complaint before the respondent No.2 on 17.07.2019.

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

(iii) The petitioner alleges that respondent No.3 in order to wreck vengeance had made allegations against the petitioner and recommended to the State Government for closure of the hostel run by the petitioner. It claimed that in a meeting before the Standing Committee of Zilla Panchayat, Tumakuru, dated 29.06.2019, respondent No.3 had clarified regarding good working condition of the hostel run by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 directed the Child Development Project Officer to inspect the hostel run by the petitioner in terms of a letter dated 02.01.2020. The Child Development Project Officer visited the spot and submitted a report on 08.01.2020 stating that there were 50 girls residing in the hostel and that the hostel was functioning with all the facilities. The petitioner claims that it persistently requested the concerned authority to release the grant in time. A request was also made before the Zilla Panchayat, who had inspected the hostel on 03.03.2020 and recommended continuation of the girls hostel after verification of the records and other facilities available. The petitioner claims that though there was no complaint of whatsoever nature yet, the respondents were not permitting the petitioner to continue to run its hostel. However, based on

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

a report of the District Committee dated 16.07.2019, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 13.07.2020 to close down the hostel run by the petitioner. This order was intimated to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 on 17.07.2020. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the order impugned by which the hostel run by the petitioner was ordered to be closed down.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.1, based on certain inspection done by a District Level Committee on 05.08.2019, had noticed that there were 12 to 13 girls in the hostel and 32 girls were on leave. He therefore, contends that as on 05.08.2019, there were nearly 45 girls even according to the respondent No.1. He therefore, contends that the claim of the respondents that there was no sufficient strength in the hostel and that there were no facilities in the hostel, is false. He contends that there were no allegations that the facilities were inadequate but on the contrary, the report of the Child Development Project Officer dated 08.01.2020 showed that there were nearly 50 students, who were staying in the hostel and that the hostel had all the facilities. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

passed behind the back of the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent its case. He further contends that the petitioner has not been paid grant for 50 students, who were sent by the respondents. Therefore, he submits that impugned order is liable to be set aside and appropriate direction be issued to the respondents for payment of grant based upon the number of students who were referred to the petitioner.

¶46

(i) The petition is opposed by the respondents

¶47

who contend that the petitioner was running a hostel for children studying in 6^th Standard to 10^th Standard at Kunigal, Tumakuru, as per the Government Order dated 16.08.2007. Later, the petitioner sought transfer of the hostel to Tumakuru on 27.07.2011. Accordingly, an order was passed by respondent No.1 on 22.03.2012 permitting petitioner to run a hostel for girls pursuing post metric education. The petitioner was running the hostel at 5^th 'A' Cross, Valmikinagar, Opposite to SIT College, Beside of Dhanalakshmi Bank, Batawadi, Tumakuru. However, the petitioner without giving information to the Department, shifted the hostel to 2^nd Cross, Post Office Road, Someshwarapuram, Tumakuru. The respondent No.2 had

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

issued an order for formation of a committee headed by respondent No.3 for selection of students for admission at the hostel and for release of grant. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 in order to release the quarterly grant visited the hostel on 03.06.2019 and found that it was closed. Though the sanctioned strength in institution was 50 girls, there were no students at the time of inspection. When the respondent No.3 enquired with the petitioner, it was informed that the building was under pest control. The respondent No.3 was requested to return back for inspection after three days. Accordingly, respondent No.3 visited the hostel on 06.06.2019 and found that there were 22 hostelites and there were no proper toilets, rooms were not sufficient, there were no mattresses, no chairs, no tables for the students to sit and study, there was no library etc., Therefore, notice was issued to the Secretary of the hostel on 16.06.2019, which was replied on 15.06.2019 claiming that all the facilities were available in the hostel.

¶51

(ii) The respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that the hostel was not run in accordance with norms and guidelines issued by the Department of Women and Child Development. Later, Women Welfare Officer of the Department of Women and

¶52

9 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Child Development, Tumakuru, who is also a member of the District Committee, visited the petitioner's hostel on 28.06.2019 on which day, there were 39 inmates. The respondents claim that sanctioned strength of the hostel was 50. However, in the interview conducted to admit students during the year 2019-20, no students attended. Later, interview date was re-fixed on 12.07.2019 and 29 students who had availed the hostel benefit during 2018-19 had applied for continuation during 2019-20. Out of them, 27 girls attended the interview on 12.07.2019 and 33 fresh students had applied of whom 22 students had attended the interview. They contend that petitioner had lodged a complaint against respondent No.3 with the District Commissioner (Revenue).

¶56

(iii) On 15.07.2019, the District Commissioner instructed the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath to form a committee and look into a complaint and report. Accordingly, a committee was formed, which visited the hostel of petitioner and inspected the hostel. A report was submitted stating that though the student strength was 50, only 45 were present. The dormitory was run in a house which was very small, with no ventilation. The students had only six bedrooms

¶57

10 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

and the rooms were not fit for living, so students were sleeping

¶61

in the inventory room which did not have required facilities. There was no filter for drinking water and students slept on the floor etc., The Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat by his letter dated 14.08.2019 informed the respondent No.3 that the committee found that the petitioner was not running the hostel as per the norms and guidelines so issued and that there were deficiencies in providing basic amenities and accommodation in the hostel. However, keeping in mind the welfare and interest of the students, it had directed the petitioner to submit an undertaking to provide amenities and accommodation within two months. This letter of the Chief Executive Officer was forwarded by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner with a covering letter requesting it to furnish an undertaking. Accordingly, the petitioner gave a reply on 19.08.2019 along with an affidavit, which was casual and evasive. Consequent thereto, the Deputy Director, Women and Child Development informed the Secretary of the petitioner vide letter dated 17.08.2019 to submit an affidavit saying that the facilities would be provided within two months. The respondents claimed that the petitioner failed to provide basic amenities and

¶62

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

accommodation to the students and hence, prayed that no indulgence be shown to the petitioner.

¶65

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶66

reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs as it is not providing basic amenities to the inmates as per the Government Order dated 16.08.2007.

¶67

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶68

The impugned order is on the basis of an inspection carried out on 05.08.2019 by the District Level Committee. The Committee only noticed that there were 12 to 13 students on the date of inspection, while 32 had gone on leave. Despite that, there were attendance markings in respect of 32 absentees. Therefore, the committee took exception to the petitioner in doing so. Except saying that the petitioner was not running the hostel as per the Government Order, nothing was mentioned disentitling the petitioner from running the hostel. Though there was no mention in the inspection report

¶69

12 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

that the hostel did not have the basic facilities, if the facility was discontinued on this ground, the petitioner had to be put on notice as to what was not available. It may be that there were deficiencies or shortcomings in the petitioner running the hostel, but when that is the basis for initiating action, the petitioner was bound to be notified of the deficiencies and an opportunity had to be provided to explain. The requirement of following principles of natural justice is not a mere formality but is part of Rule of law to be complied by every administrative/quasi-judicial/judicial authority when it relates to adjudication of some right/liability. The agencies of the State are bound to demonstrate this in their orders not as a formality but to justify its action when questioned before a Court of law. Therefore, on this short ground alone the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶73

However, having regard to the fact that the State is meeting part of the expenses to enable the petitioner to run the hostel, it shall make sure that the facilities are in line with the specifications prescribed under the Government Order dated 16.08.2007. Therefore, without going into the question whether the petitioner had all the facilities or not, it is appropriate to

¶74

13 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

direct respondent No.1 to re-inspect the petitioner's hostel to check whether the facilities available in the hostel is suitable

¶78

and sufficient to accommodate 50 girl students.

¶79

Hence, the following order is passed:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

¶82

(ii) The impugned order bearing No.ªÀÄªÀÄE 03 ªÀÄªÀÄC

¶83

2020, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 13.07.2020 passed by

¶84

respondent No.1 is quashed.

¶85

(iii) The respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to reinspect the hostel run by the petitioner either at the present location or any other place shown by the petitioner and check whether the facilities available therein are suitable to accommodate 50 girl students. If it is suitable, respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall reconsider the case of the petitioner to run a hostel for girl students.

¶86

14 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:34180 WP No. 10306 of 2020

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

(iv) In so far as claim of the petitioner for arrears of grant is concerned, the petitioner shall file detailed calculation giving proof of number of students who were admitted in its hostel, to the respondent No.3, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. The respondent No.3 shall verify those records and thereafter process the request of the petitioner and if the petitioner is entitled, it shall make sure that the grant is made and released within a period of three months thereafter.

¶90

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶91

PMR

¶92

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

M/S Shanthinikethana Education and Social Welfare Society (R.) v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shanthinikethana Education and Social Welfare Society (R.) v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K L Tejas Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

S G Mohammed Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri N Manjunatha Vs State Bank of India

Mr. Umesh J Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Pratap Kumar Sahani Vs Chief Authorized Officers Union Bank

K.K. Plastics Waste Management Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra