Allowed¶53

Nanjundeshwara Educational Trust v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025WP/13018/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka; WP No. 13018 of 2025 (EDN-RES); Articles 226 and 227; Bengaluru North University Registrar notice quashed; restraint on first year B.Com and BCA admissions; FIR Crime No.48/2024; chargesheet CC No.1733/2025; accused Nos. 3 and 4 erstwhile Trustees expelled; incident in college premises not sufficient to bar admissions; Nanjundeshwara Educational Trust; Smart Degree College; admission permitted subject to University requirements; S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.; 15.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned notice at Annexure-A (dated 17.04.2025) is quashed; the petitioners are permitted to admit students to the 2nd petitioner-College subject to satisfying all other requirements. ¶53

Nanjundeshwara Educational Trust Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure-A) restraining the petitioners from taking admission of students to the first year B.Com and BCA courses can be sustained where neither the Trust/its Secretary nor the College/its Principal is arraigned as an accused in the FIR/chargesheet. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

A perusal of the final report/chargesheet clearly indicates that neither the 1st petitioner-Trust or its Secretary nor the 2nd petitioner-College or its Principal have been arraigned/included as accused persons in the final chargesheet pending in CC No.1733/2025; the chargesheet is directed only against the two expelled Trustees of the Trust (accused Nos. 3 and 4), one student of the petitioner-College and other students of different colleges.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the incident is said to have occurred in the college premises, coupled with the fact that the petitioners have already initiated action and expelled their two trustees and college students, the said FIR and chargesheet cannot be made the basis to prevent the petitioners from admitting students to the 2nd petitioner's College as sought in the impugned notice.

¶46

Key takeaways

The petitioners would have to be permitted to comply with all other requirements sought for by the 2nd respondent-University pursuant to admission of students to the College in accordance with law; accordingly, the impugned notice at Annexure-A deserved to be and is quashed by issuing certain directions.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Education (EDN-RES) writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Nanjundeshwara Educational Trust and the Principal, Smart Degree College (Bengaluru North University), allowed by S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. (order dated 15.10.2025): the Registrar's notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure-A) restraining admission of students to first year B.Com and BCA courses, issued while the final report in FIR Crime No.48/2024 was awaited, was quashed because the chargesheet pending in CC No.1733/2025 arraigns only accused Nos. 3 and 4 (erstwhile Trustees since expelled), one student of the petitioner-College and students of other colleges, and neither the Trust/its Secretary nor the College/its Principal is an accused; the mere fact that the incident occurred in the college premises, coupled with the petitioners' own disciplinary action, cannot be the basis to prevent admissions, which were permitted subject to compliance with all other University requirements.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:40877 WP No. 13018 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 13018 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NANJUNDESHWARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST (REGISTERED). HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.670,

¶10

KUMBARPET MAIN ROAD, KOLAR-563 101 REP. BY SECRETARY SMT. MANJULA.

¶11

THE PRINCIPAL, SMART DEGREE COLLEGE, BENGALURU NORTH UNIVERSITY, TAMAKA, KOLAR-563 101, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SRI.NATESH.P

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.N.SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (UNIVERSITY), MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶17

THE REGISTRAR, THE BENGALURU NORTH UNIVERSITY, TAMAKA, KOLAR-563 101

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI MANJUNATH.K, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI K.S NARESH SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 17/04/2025 BEARING NO. BO.U.V.V./ KU.Sa.Ka/70/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:40877 WP No. 13018 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶28

"WHEREFORE, the petitioners above named most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

¶29

a). Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or direction quashing the notice dated 17/04/2025 bearing no. BO.U.V.V./ KU.SA.KA/70/2025-26 issued by the second respondent produced and marked as Annexure-A.

¶30

b). Pass such other suitable order/s as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity."

¶31

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶32

HCGP for 1^st respondent and learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent- The Bengaluru North University and perused the material on record.

¶33

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned notice at Annexure-A dated 17.04.2025, in order to point out that though neither the 1st petitioner- Trust, represented by its Secretary, Smt. Manjula nor the 2^nd petitioner- Smart Degree College, represented by its Principal Mr. Natesh P., are arraigned

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40877 WP No. 13018 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

as accused persons in FIR in Crime No.48/2024 filed against the various accused persons, including accused Nos.3 and 4 who were erstwhile Trustees of 1^st petitioner-Trust along with one of the students of the College and students of other colleges, the 2^nd respondent-University had issued the impugned notice restraining the petitioners from taking admission to the first year B.Com and BCA courses which is contrary to the material on record and the same deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that after having come to know about the illegalities committed by its two Trustees, who were arraigned as accused Nos. 3 and 4 and the other students, the petitioners have expelled the said two Trustees as well as initiated action against the students and other persons and as such, the petitioners cannot be prevented from taking new students for admission to first year B.Com and BCA and the impugned notice deserves to be quashed on this ground also.

¶37

Per contra , learned counsel for 2nd respondent-University submits that though 1^st petitioner -Trust and its Secretary or 2^nd petitioner -College, represented by its Principal have not been expressly named in the FIR or chargesheet which is currently pending in CC No.1733/2025, since the alleged incident took place

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40877 WP No. 13018 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

at the college premises, the 2^nd respondent was fully justified in issuing the impugned notice and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

By way of reply, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would invite the attention to the chargesheet in order to point out that no allegations have been made either against 1^st petitionerTrust or its Secretary or against 2^nd petitioner- College or its Principal and the entire allegations are directed only against the two expelled/removed Trustees and one of the students of the petitioner's college and other persons and as such, merely because, the incident is said to have occurred in the college premises, the question of preventing the petitioners from admitting the students would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

¶42

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶43

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the first instance, the FIR in Crime No.48/2024 was registered against unknown persons at the instance of the complaint given by 2^nd

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40877 WP No. 13018 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

respondent -University. At that stage, the 2^nd respondent addressed the impugned communication/notice at Annexure A dated 17.04.2025 calling upon the petitioners not to admit the students on the ground that final report is awaited. However, a perusal of the final report/chargesheet would clearly indicate that neither the 1^st petitioner- Trust or its Secretary or the 2^nd petitioner -College or its Principal have been arraigned/ included as the accused persons in the final chargesheet pending in CC No.1733/2025 which are directed only as against two expelled Trustees of 1^st petitioner-Trust, who are arraigned as accused Nos. 3 and 4, one student of the 2^nd petitioner- College and other students of different colleges and consequently, merely because the incident is said to have occurred in the college premises coupled with the fact that the petitioners have already initiated action and expelled its two trustees and its college students, the said FIR and chargesheet cannot be made the basis to prevent the petitioners from admitting the students to the 2^nd petitioner's College hence forth as sought to be alleged in the impugned notice.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:40877 WP No. 13018 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

It is needless to state that petitioners would have to be permitted to comply all other requirement as sought for by the 2^nd respondent -University pursuant to the admission of students to the 2^nd petitioner- college in accordance with law and the impugned notice at Annexure-A deserves to be quashed by issuing certain directions.

¶51