Sri Kuvempu B. C. M., Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.03.2019 BEARING NO. ED 22 TPU 2016 ISSUED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶27

“(i) Quashing the endorsement dated 19.03.2019 bearing No.ED 22 TPU 2016 issued by the 1^st Respondent vide Annexure – Q.

¶28

(ii) Further direct the Respondent to cover the college run by the petition under grant in aid.

¶29

(iii) Further grant any such other relief that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶31

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶32

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner started running its PU College under the name and type

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13712 WP No. 3191 of 2022

¶34

Sri Kuvempu B.C.M. Education Society (R) from 20.05.1987 onwards vide Annexure – A dated 20.05.1987. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application to the respondent to cover the college under the grant-in-aid code vide application dated 02.04.2009, which was rejected by the respondent, aggrieved by which the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.12838/2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2013 directing the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently, since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.No.53568/2016 which was disposed of vide final order dated 07.10.2016 by holding as under:

¶35

“Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents.

¶36

2. The petitioner is before this Court for writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the report dated 2.1.2016 submitted by the 2^nd respondent as per Annexure-F and also the representation dated 26.9.2016 of the petitioner vide Annexure-G for grant-in- aid.

¶37

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner institution had commenced a pre-university college at Arudi, Doddaballapura taluk, Bangalure rural district in the academic year 1987-88. The said institution is run by a backward community people. After obtaining necessary permission from the competent

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:13712 WP No. 3191 of 2022

¶40

authority, the Junior College was shifted to Koratagere Town since from the academic year 2005-06 and presently, the Junior College is being run at Koratagere Town. Since the year of commencement i.e. from 1987-88 up to the present academic year, the College is being run by the Management without any obstruction. The Management is running an Arts College and there are sufficient number of students in the college from the beginning. The college is being run by the Management for 26 years without any break. The State Government by a Gazette Notification dated 15.10.2007 vide Annexure-A has made a provision to bring the educational institutions which are being commenced from 1.6.1987 to 1992-93 academic year under the grant- in-aid code. The gazette notification contains certain conditions and if they are complied with and the education institution is being run without any break, the institution can be included or brought under grantin-aid. Therefore the petitioner made an application to the 3^rd respondent to include the institution of the petitioner to grant-inaid. The 3^rd respondent – Deputy Director had directed the petitioner to clarify some defects in the application. The petitioner has rectified all the defects and the proposal is sent to the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter the petitioner filed W.P. No.12838/2013 before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders to include the college run by the petitioner to cover under the grant-in-aid and this Court after hearing both the parties, by an order dated 16.9.2013 has directed the 3^rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶41

4. It is further case of the petitioner that on the basis of order of this Court, the respondents have formed a committee consisting of three members who visited the petitioner institution and submitted the report on 7.11.2015 for inclusion of the Junior

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:13712 WP No. 3191 of 2022

¶44

College under the grant-in-aid with some condition. On the basis of the report received by the 3^rd respondent from the three member committee, the 3rd respondent had recommended to the 2^nd respondent to include the college run by the petitioner to cover under the grant in aid and the 2^nd respondent in turn has recommended to the 1^st respondent on 2.1.2016 as per AnnexureF. Inspite of the same, the 1^st respondent has not passed orders till this date. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the reliefs sought for.

¶45

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

¶46

6. Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner – institution vehemently contended that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is running the Pre-University college from 1987-88 till today without any break and it is also not in dispute that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of the report submitted by the three-man committee recommended to the 1^st respondent for inclusion of the petitioner college for the grant-in-aid. Inspite of the recommendation, the 1^st respondent has not passed the order. Therefore non-action of the 1^st respondent is in utter violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition.

¶47

7. Per contra, Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the 1^st respondent will consider the representation dated 26.9.2016 made by the petitioner as per Annexure-G, if not already considered and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶48

8. In view of the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is “whether the petitioner has made out any prima-facie case to issue writ of mandamus to the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 26.9.2016”.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:13712 WP No. 3191 of 2022

¶51

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

¶52

10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is running the Pre-University college from the academic year 1987-88 till today without any break. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner for inclusion of the petitioner institution to grant-in-aid and on the basis of the directions issued by this Court on 16.9.2013 in W.P. No.12838/2013, a three man committee was constituted and accordingly, the committee has recommended by a report dated 7.11.2015 for inclusion of the college run by the petitioner for grant-in-aid. In pursuance of the same, the 3^rd respondent has recommended to the 2^nd respondent and in turn, the 2^nd respondent has recommended to the 1^st respondent as can be seen from Annexure-F dated 2.1.2016. The fact remains that the 1^st respondent has not considered the report – Annexure-F and passed orders till today.

¶53

10. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition is to be answered in the affirmative holding that the petitioner has made out a case for issue of writ of mandamus as prayed for.

¶54

In view of the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is allowed. The 1^st respondent – State Government is directed to consider the report dated 2.1.2016 given by the 2^nd respondent as per Annexure-F and also the representation dated 26.9.2016 of the petitioner as per Annexure-G for inclusion of the college run by the petitioner institution for grant-in-aid and pass orders in accordance with law, if not already considered, within a period of eight weeks.”

¶55

Thereafter, the respondent having rejected the claim of

¶56

the petitioner vide order dated 31.01.2017, the petitioner

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13712 WP No. 3191 of 2022

¶58

approached this Court in W.P.No.11548/2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2018 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for consideration in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 09.04.2018 pursuant to which, the respondent proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement at Annexure – Q dated 19.03.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶59

A perusal of the impugned endorsement will indicate that after having referred to the recommendation dated 04.08.2018 made by the Director of the PU Education, respondent proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner on the ground that in the light of the decision taken by the State government in its meeting held on 28.09.2018, the State government passed an order on 02.01.2019 deciding not to include colleges established from 01.06.1987 to 1994-95 for the purpose of awarding grant-in-aid code. In this context, it is relevant to state that respondent failed to consider and appreciate that vide Annexure – A dated 20.05.1987, petitioner had established the college prior to 01.06.1987 and

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13712 WP No. 3191 of 2022

¶61

consequently, the said order dated 02.01.2019 prescribing cut-off date as 01.06.1987 was not applicable to the petitioner’s college, which would otherwise be entitled to avail grant-in-aid code and as such, the said reason assigned in the impugned endorsement is wholly erroneous and contract to the facts warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶62

It is also relevant to state that vide Annexure – R dated 19.08.2019 and Circular at Annexure – S dated 19.09.2019, the State Government has clearly stated that even colleges coming within the period from 01.06.1987 to 1994-95 would be entitled to seek benefit of grant-in-aid code as is clear from the aforesaid Communication at Annexure – R dated 19.08.2019 and Circular dated 19.09.2019, which is sufficient to come to the conclusion that even assuming that the petitioner was covered by the period from 01.06.1987 to 1994-95, it was still entitled to seek grant-in-aid code from the respondent, in accordance with law.

¶63

It is also relevant to state that despite repeated directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, the respondents could not have summarily rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant-in-aid code without appreciating the various

¶64

9 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:13712 WP No. 3191 of 2022

¶66

directions issued by this Court including recommendation of the Director dated 04.08.2018, which is yet another circumstance which would vitiate entire proceedings.

¶67

In the result, I pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶70

(ii) The impugned endorsement at Annexure – Q dated 19.03.2019 is hereby quashed.

¶71

(iii) Respondents are directed include the petitioner – institution for the purpose of grant-in-aid code subject to petitioner complying with all other legal / statutory requirements, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶72

(iv) It is needless to state that in the event the petitioner is found not to have complied with any of the other statutory requirements, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in this order and documents after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

¶73

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶74

SV;

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

¶76

* Retyped and replaced vide Chamber order dated 03.05.2025

Sri Kuvempu B. C. M., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kuvempu B. C. M., 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Udhyaman Investments Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Sampigehalli Muninanjappa Lakshman Vs the Income Tax Officer

Sampigehallai Muninanjappa Ramanna Vs Assessment Unit

Mr. Prathap. v Vs State of Karnataka

Kum Meghana Vs the Principal Secretary

Shimogga Urban Development Authority Vs the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax