Trishul Education Association (R) Vs State of Karnataka

TRISHUL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (R) (REGISTRERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960) AT K.B. EXTENSION DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA - 577 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.B. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PAWAN SHYAM A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EDUCATION) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (DDPI) PRINCE JAYACHAMARAJA WODEYAR, DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA - 577 002.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:16527 WP NO.4075 OF 2025

¶19

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER PRINCE JAYACHAMARAJA WODEYAR, DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA - 577 002.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-H ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR RE-INSTATING THE PERMANENT RECOGNITION STATUS GRANTED TO PETITIONER SCHOOL AND RELEASE THE AMOUNT OF RS.29,84,672/- (RUPEES TWENTY NINE THOUSAND EIGHTY FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO ONLY) WITHHELD BY THE RESPONDENTS AND PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER FOR IMPARTING EDUCATION TO CHILDREN UNDER THE RTE ACT, 2009 QUOTA; AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶26

"a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 16.12.2024 vide Annexure-H issued to the respondents for reinstating the permanent recognition status granted to the petitioner school and release the amount of Rs.29,84,672/(Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Two only) withheld by the respondents and payable to the petitioner for imparting education to children under the Right to Education Act, 2009 quota;

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:16527 WP NO.4075 OF 2025

¶29

b) Grant costs and pass such other/further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No.8798 of 2024 in order to point out that, despite the said order and amendment to Rule 11 of the Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012, the respondents have not considered the representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-H) for reinstatement of the permanent recognition status of the petitioner. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, though the petitioner had furnished the sufficient material to establish that, it is entitled to RTE Reimbursement Amount for a sum of Rs.29,84,672/- from the respondents, the said amount has been withheld by the respondents and same has not been paid to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ petition,

¶32

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents does not dispute that the respondents are liable to pay a

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16527 WP NO.4075 OF 2025

¶34

sum of Rs.29,84,672/- to the petitioner and the same would be paid within reasonable time. However, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, insofar as the claim of reinstatement of the permanent recognition status of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents would consider the representation dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-H) and pass appropriate orders / take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶35

The aforesaid facts and circumstances and joint submission made by both sides clearly indicate that, insofar as the right of the petitioner to claim the reimbursement of the RTE Amount for a sum of Rs.29,84,672/- is concerned, there is no dispute inter se between the parties and as such, necessary directions have to be issued to the respondents in this regard.

¶36

Further, Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement of permanent recognition status is concerned, since the representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-H) has not been considered by the respondents so far, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing certain directions.

¶37

In the result, I pass the following:

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

a) Writ petition is hereby allowed and disposed of;

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:16527 WP NO.4075 OF 2025

¶42

b) Respondents are directed to release / reimburse a sum of Rs.29,84,672/- to the petitioner towards RTE Amount within a period of ten weeks from today;

¶43

c) Respondents are also directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-H) and pass appropriate orders / take appropriate decision in accordance with law bearing in mind the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8798/2024 as well as the amendment to the Rule 11 of the Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012, which came into effect from 26.08.2024, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶44

SD/(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶45

ARK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16

Trishul Education Association (R) v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trishul Education Association (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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sameer Ahmed Hirekerur Vs the Pricniapal Commissioner of Central Tax

Mr. Syed Anwar Basha Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt. a Amaravathi Vs Sri a Siddagangadhar

M/S Bengaluru North University Vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax

Sarvodaya Bed College Vs National Council of Teacher Education (Ncte)

Kadara Narasaiah Since Dead by His Lrs., Vs S. Revanna