Allowed¶41

Dinesh Coaching Centre v. State of Karnataka

Coaching centre registration – Quashing order

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2026WP/4228/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), E.S. Indiresh J., WP No. 4228 of 2026 (EDN-RES), decided 13.03.2026 — Dinesh Coaching Centre v. State of Karnataka and others — writ petition allowed; Official Memorandum dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure-E) quashing the petitioner's coaching centre registration/permission quashed as passed without application of mind, without consideration of any material or allegations, and without valid or sufficient reasons; matter held to fall outside the purview of the Karnataka Tutorial Institutions (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2001.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the order/Official Memorandum dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure-E) passed by Respondent No. 2 is quashed. ¶41

Dinesh Coaching Centre Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15029 WP No. 4228 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.4228 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DINESH COACHING CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.N.V. DINESH, S/O. LATE VISHWESWARIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.445, 1^ST CROSS, MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU- 570023.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION MYSURU-570001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:15029 WP No. 4228 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI. SRINIVAS PRASAD, S/O LATE PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.444, 1^ST CROSS, MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU-570023.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. G.S. VENKATA SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE FO RR3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2026 PASSED IN CASE NO.G2/1353/TU NO-01/2025-26 3987 BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS PER THE ANNEXURE-E, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION OR PASS OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri. G.S. Venkata Subbarao, learned counsel, has

¶28

filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No. 3.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15029 WP No. 4228 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

parties.

¶33

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure-E) passed by Respondent No. 2.

¶34

A perusal of the arguments advanced by the

¶35

learned counsel for the parties, as well as the writ papers, indicates that Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned Official Memorandum dated 29.01.2026, and thereby quashing the registration/permission granted to the petitioner to conduct a coaching centre.

¶36

On careful consideration of Annexure-E, it is evident that no material has been considered by Respondent No.2, nor there are any allegations made against the petitioner, as is apparent from the impugned order.

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15029 WP No. 4228 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

6. In that view of the matter, the impugned

¶40

order/ Official Memorandum dated 29.01.2026 is

¶41

passed without application of mind and does not disclose any valid or sufficient reasons for quashing the registration of the coaching centre run by the petitioner. Hence, the petition is allowed . The order / Official Memorandum dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure-E) passed by Respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed as the matter shall not fall within the purview of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Tutorial Institutions (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2001.

¶42

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶43

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Dinesh Coaching Centre v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Coaching Centre 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

Gururaj N. K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K C Annegowda, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Abdul Majid Vs Smt. Jabeen Husaine

M Srinivasa Vs M/S Rsun Constructions

Sri. Sathish. K. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

K N Sharath Babu Vs Sri Sri Ravishankar Vidya Mandir School