Chanakya Bharathi Trust Vs State of Karnataka

CHANAKYA BHARATHI TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE TRUSTS ACT, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT #42 AND #43, "ANANDGIRI", 6^TH AND 7^TH CROSS, OPPOSITE HILL TEMPLE, NEAR SUMANGALI SEVA ASHRAM MAIN ROAD, RT.NAGAR PO, BENGALURU - 560 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. RAMESH SHETTY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATE & SRI. KARITHIKA RAVEENDRAN NAIR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHANGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17923 WP No. 21189 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHANGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS KG ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER 18^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU NORTH ZONE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA B., AGA)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 01.04.2025 BEARING NO.A7/ANADI/ SHALE/STALANTARA/2292/2016-17 (ANNEXURE-Y) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR WRIT AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is assailing the Notification/Endorsement dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure - Y) and the Cancellation order dated 06.02.2024 quashing

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17923 WP No. 21189 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

the Notification/Notice dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure - V), issued by the respondent No.5 and to further sought for quashing the Notification/Endorsement dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure - Z) issued by respondent No.4.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the recognition was accorded to the petitioner's school as per the letter dated 20.08.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 (Annexure - S) and also, accorded permission for the transfer of the school, subject to certain conditions specified at Annexure - S to the petition. In the backdrop of the aforementioned aspects, the impugned Endorsement dated 01.04.2025 has been issued by the respondent No.5, de-recognising the petitioner's school erroneously under Section 39(2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act') and as such sought for interference of this Court.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:17923 WP No. 21189 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

It is also submitted by the learned counsel

¶37

appearing for the petitioner - school that before derecognising the school, the petitioner has not been heard in the matter and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶38

Per contra, Smt. Sukanya Baliga B., learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned action by the respondent-authorities.

¶39

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of Annexure - S dated 20.08.2022, whereby the respondent No.2 has accorded permission for transfer of the school subject to certain conditions specified therein. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has complied with the conditions referred to at Annexure - S to the petition. In

¶40

the backdrop of these aspects, a perusal of the Endorsement dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure - Y) indicate that the respondent No.5 has stated that the petitioner -

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17923 WP No. 21189 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

school has been transferred without permission from the respondent - authorities, consequently, de-recognised the petitioner's school.

¶44

The reasons assigned by the respondent No.5 at Annexure - Y, that the school has been transferred without complying the provisions under Section 34 read with Section 39(2) of the Act. A perusal of the writ petition would indicate that, the respondents have not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's school before de-recognising the school while passing the impugned Endorsement dated 01.04.2025 at Annexure - Y. Even though reasons assigned at Annexure - Y dated 01.04.2025 suggesting that the school has been transferred without permission, however, the respondent No.2 has already passed an order at Annexure - S, accepting the reasons with respect to the transfer of the school concerned. In that view of the matter, I find force

¶45

in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned Endorsement dated

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:17923 WP No. 21189 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

01.04.2025 based on the letter dated 06.02.2024, by the

¶50

respondent No.4 has been passed without hearing the

¶51

petitioner.

¶52

In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondent-authorities has to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before

¶53

de-recognising the petitioner's school is concerned.

¶54

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶57

ii) It is hereby set aside the impugned Notification/Endorsement dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure - Y) passed by the respondent No.5, notification dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure - V) passed by the respondent No.5 and Notification/Endorsement dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure - Z) passed by respondent no. 4.

¶58

iii) It is made clear that the respondents shall take decision against the petitioner's school by considering the letter dated 20.08.2022

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:17923 WP No. 21189 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

(Annexure - S) issued by the respondent No.1 and also consider the compliance made thereunder by the petitioner before resorting to such action as to derecognize the school.

¶62

In view of allowing the Writ Petition, the respondent - authorities are directed to issue the SATS (Student Achievement Tracking Score) to the petitioner's school within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶63

In view of the allowing of the Writ Petition, I.A.No.1/2025 and I.A.No.2/2025 does not survive for

¶64

consideration and accordingly disposed of.

¶65

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶66

KLV

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Chanakya Bharathi Trust v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanakya Bharathi Trust 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

Smt R Rajeshwari Vs B Basappa

Chauson Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka

The National and Rural Education Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Preetham. v Vs the Registrar

Gangamma Vs Puttarevamma

K. R. Sowjanya Vs Mysuru District Co-Operative