R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.7948 OF2021EDN-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O SRI RAMAIAH W/O SRI RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT73YEARS R/AT KAMMASANDRA CROSS, HEBBAGODI VILLAGE ATHIBELE HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY POST ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU560100 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIKANTH M.P., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001 2 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K R CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, KALASIPALYA BENGALURU - 560 002 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU562106 6. USHA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION NO.53, 5TH A-CROSS, MCH OCLONY BTM2D STAGE BENGALURU - 560 076 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI ARVIND KAMATH, SR.COUNSEL A/W MR.NIKIT BALA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERDTD. 22.09.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-AF. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON2307.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3.
ORDERThe captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.09.2020 bearing No.C7(3) Pra.Shi.Aa.Shala. Vidoor.48/2020-21 passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-AF.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The dispute in the present case on hand is in regard to the Educational Institution run by the respondent No.6 in Sy.No.64/1 situated at Kammasandra Road, Hebbagodi Village, Electronic City, Hosur CMC, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. The petitioner's contention is that Sy.No.64/1 and other various properties were purchased by her father Late Ramaiah and his brother Chinnappa Reddy. The petitioner claims to be the eldest daughter of Late K.Ramaiah. It is further contended by the petitioner that she has two brothers and one sister. It is also contended that her parents died intestate leaving behind vast movable and immovable properties. The petitioner has also contended that she requested the family 4 members to effect partition by metes and bounds and since her family members were not in a mood to heed to her request, she was compelled to file a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.6771/2013.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that her nephew namely Mahesh Reddy who is arrayed as defendant No.7 has created a trust in the name and style 'Usha Educational Foundation' and the said educational institution is being run in Sy.No.64/1. The said Usha Educational Foundation is running a school in the name and style 'National Public School'. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that respondent No.6 started running the school at Sy.No.143 though registration of educational institution is sought by declaring that the educational institution is run in Sy.No.64/1. Having come to know about the said fraud, the petitioner caused a legal notice dated 20.11.2019. On receipt of the legal notice, the respondent No.5 issued a show cause notice on respondent No.6 which was replied by the respondent No.6 institution 5 through their advocate. The petitioner claims that in the reply notice, the respondent No.6 institution has admitted in regard to pendency of the suit.
4. The petitioner has further contended that the respondent No.5 on enquiry submitted a report to respondent No.4 on 09.01.2020 and requested to consider the same for further action. On receipt of the report, the respondent No.4 issued a notice on 13.01.2020 to the respondent No.6 calling upon them to show cause as to why registration granted to the institution should not be cancelled. The petitioner has also contended that the respondent No.4 also issued a notice to the Three Men Committee having found that the committee members have mislead and there is dereliction on their part with regard to carrying out their duties. Petitioner also claims that the Education Officer attached to the office of Deputy Director having conducted the spot inspection submitted a report indicating that the respondent No.6 educational institution is imparting education in some other survey 6 number instead of Sy.No.64/1 where registration was obtained. The respondent No.4 having considered the entire material sent a communication on 21.05.2020 to the respondent No.3 recommending for cancellation of registration granted to the respondent No.6 institution on the ground that the respondent No.6 has mislead the department by showing infrastructure which was not meant for running a primary school. The respondent No.2 by order dated 15.06.2020, ordered for cancellation of registration of respondent No.6 institution. On 19.06.2020, the respondent No.6 institution submitted a representation seeking review of the order dated 15.06.2020. The respondent No.2 by order dated 22.09.2020, restored the registration. It is this order passed by the respondent No.2 which is called in question before this Court by filing the top noted writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the impugned order passed 7 by the respondent No.2 is illegal, capricious and arbitrary. He would submit to this Court that the respondent No.2 was not justified in entertaining the application which is not filed in terms of Section 132 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. He would further submit to this Court that when a review is sought, the same has to be accompanied by prescribed fees and therefore, in absence of payment of court fee, the application submitted by the respondent No.6 seeking review of the order of cancellation of registration could not have been entertained by the respondent No.2.
6. Placing reliance on the provisions of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Appeal, Revision and Review) Rules, 1998, he would submit to this Court that Rule 6(1) provides that application under Section 132 shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by fee of Rs.100/-. He would further argue and contend that the application has to set-forth the ground of revision and the said application also needs to be accompanied by an authenticated copy of the order and proceedings on 8 which the application is made. Learned counsel would also contend that the order under challenge is also bad in law on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He would contend that the initiation of action by the department was at the instance of the present petitioner who had lodged a complaint and consequently the department, on enquiry, had ordered for cancellation of registration and therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the authority while restoring the registration were required to notify the petitioner. On this count also, the order under challenge is not sustainable and therefore, he would submit to this Court that the order is liable to be quashed by this Court.
7. Learned counsel would further submit to this Court that the petitioner is an interested party as she has instituted the suit in the year 2013 itself seeking partition of all the properties and therefore, he would contend before this Court that Sy.No.64/1 and Sy.No.143/2 are also subject matter of the suit and therefore, the petitioner's nephew who is the 9 managing trustee of respondent No.6 educational institution has indulged in creating third party rights in the properties. Therefore, the restoration of registration of respondent No.6 institution suffers from illegality.
8. Learned counsel has also taken this Court to the notices and reply notices issued by the rival parties and has also taken this Court to the communications issued by the authorities as per Annexures-Q, R, S and T and also reply notices issued by the authorities. He has also taken this Court to the spot inspection conducted by the respondent No.5 - Block Education Officer.
9. Per contra, Shri Arvind Kamath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 repelling the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this Court that the petitioner with an oblique motive has initiated the present litigation and the same amounts to abuse of process of law. To counter the grounds 10 urged in the writ petition, learned Senior Counsel would take this Court to the registered partition deed executed between the petitioner and father of the managing trustee namely Muniyappa. Placing reliance on the registered partition deed, he would submit to this Court that the family of the petitioner have amicably resolved to effect partition in the family and accordingly, a registered partition deed came to be executed on 28.04.2005. In the said partition, the present petitioner is arrayed as ninth party. The present petitioner is allotted schedule 'H' property attached to the partition deed wherein site No.A(30) and site No.A(31) were allotted to the share of the petitioner. Placing reliance on this registered partition deed, learned Senior Counsel would submit to this Court that there was severance in the family in the year 2005 and in the said partition, the subject matter of the present writ petition which are Sy.No.64/1 and Sy.No.143/2 were allotted to H.Muniyappa, who is the father of the managing trustee namely Mahesh Reddy. Therefore, he would contend that the 11 managing trustee of respondent No.6 educational institution acquired absolute right and title in Sy.Nos.64/1 and 143/2.
10. Learned counsel would then take this Court to the copy of plaint to demonstrate the conduct of the petitioner. Placing reliance on the plaint, he would take this Court to the reliefs sought in the said partition suit. Referring to the prayer column, learned Senior Counsel would bring to the notice of this Court that even as on 2013 when the suit was filed, the petitioner has not questioned the registered partition deed dated 28.04.2005. All that is sought in the partition suit is to effect partition by metes and bounds by allotting the petitioner 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that even as on 2013, the registered partition deed was not at all under challenge. It is recently that the petitioner had filed an amendment application and by way of amendment, the petitioner has sought relief of declaration questioning the partition deed dated 28.04.2005. Relying on these two documents, learned 12 Senior Counsel would submit to this Court that the rights, if any, were decided and crystalized under the registered partition deed and therefore, the managing trustee of respondent No.6 institution namely Mahesh Reddy has constituted a trust and is running a school in Sy.No.64/1.
11. Supporting the restoration of registration by the respondent No.2, learned Senior Counsel would submit to this Court that the explanation offered by the respondent No.6 institution was reconsidered by the respondent No.2 and has rightly ordered for restoration of registration. If the entire material placed on record are meticulously examined, it would clearly indicate that the entire exercise done by the petitioner is nothing but an attempt to disrupt the school activities of respondent No.6 institution with an oblique motive to blackmail the respondent No.6 institution. Learned Senior Counsel would submit to this Court that the present writ petition is not at all maintainable. He would submit to this Court that the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative 13 remedy. Even otherwise, learned Senior Counsel would profusely argue and contend that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2 restoring the registration of the respondent No.6 institution. He would submit to this Court that the order passed by the respondent No.2 does not in any way violate any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner. He would submit to this Court that the petitioner has absolutely no concern with the administrative and academic activities of the respondent No.6. Therefore, he would submit to this Court that the restoration of registration even otherwise does not affect any rights of the petitioner.
12. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the Director of Public Instructions without issuing any show cause notice to the respondent No.6 cancelled the registration and therefore, the respondent No.6 was compelled to approach the Commissioner of Public Instructions vide letter dated 19.06.2020. He would submit to this Court that based 14 on such representation, the Commissioner constituted a Four Member Committee to inspect the school premises. The Four Member Committee accordingly visited the school on 08.07.2020 and filed a report dated 03.08.2020. Insofar as allegations made by the petitioner that the educational institution having sought recognition by furnishing that the school is being run in Sy.No.64/1 had illegally shifted to Sy.No.143/2, an explanation was offered by respondent No.6 institution that since the institution had commenced fresh construction in Sy.No.64/1, to accommodate more students, the school was temporarily shifted to the adjoining property owned by the managing trustee i.e., Sy.No.143/2 and having completed the construction, the school is shifted back to Sy.No.64/1 where originally the recognition was granted and this fact is noticed by the authorities and is also taken note of. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit to this Court that the institution has resumed its educational activities in Sy.No.64/1 by constructing a new building. On these set of 15 defence, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court:
1. Umaji Keshao Meshram & Ors Vs. Radhikabai and Another reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC401 2. Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC423 3. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Others reported in (1976) 1 SCC671 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 as well as learned AGA. The following points would arise for consideration in the light of the grounds urged in the writ petition and statement of objections:
1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-AF without notifying the petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be set aside by this Court?.
2) Whether the petitioner has locus standi and cause of action to prosecute the present writ petition assailing the correctness of the order?. 16 Re: Point No.1:
14. The petitioner is asserting right and title over the property bearing Sy.No.64/1, where the respondent No.6 institution is running a school by name 'National Public School'. From the pleadings, it can be gathered that the petitioner is not asserting any role in the management and affairs of the respondent No.6 institution but, however, petitioner is asserting legitimate share in Sy.No.64/1 by alleging that the said property which is the subject matter of writ petition was purchased by her father and her uncle Chinnappa Reddy and after the death of her father, she along with her siblings have inherited the properties. The petitioner claims that there is no partition by metes and bounds and she has filed a suit in O.S.No.6771/2013. However, the respondent No.6 has seriously disputed the claim of the petitioner herein and a specific contention is taken that the property bearing Sy.Nos.64/1 and 143/2 were allotted to the father of one of the managing trustee of respondent No.6 17 institution i.e., Mahesh Reddy and therefore, the petitioner has no semblance of right and title in the Sy.No.64/1. The respondent No.6 institution has placed reliance on the registered partition deed dated 28.04.2005. Placing reliance on the registered partition deed, the respondent No.6 is contending that Sy.Nos.64/1 and 143/2 were allotted to the share of H.Muniyappa and his wife Meenakshamma. In the said partition, the petitioner was arrayed as a ninth party who was allotted two sites bearing site No.A(30) and site No.A(31). This partition deed is dated 28.04.2005. The petitioner has filed a suit for partition and separate possession in the year 2013. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the prayer sought in the plaint which reads as under:
"1. Partition the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and allocate the separate 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of her share.
2. Direct the defendant No.1 to 7 to render proper and correct accounts of the rentals and income derived out of the properties in schedule A to F. To 18 hold and enquiry and direct Defendant No.1 to 7 to pay the plaintiff mesne profits from the suit schedule properties.
3. Grant such other relief or reliefs including the cost of suit.
15. If the prayer sought in the said suit is perused, this Court would find that the petitioner has not questioned the registered partition deed. At this juncture, it is stated across Bar that only when injunction was refused by the court below, the petitioner has sought amendment to incorporate the relief of declaration to question the registered partition deed dated 28.04.2005. Be that as it may, this Court has to examine the grievance of the petitioner in the background of the above said two factual aspects i.e., registered partition deed dated 28.04.2005 and the pending suit at the instance of the petitioner in O.S.No.6771/2013. If these two relevant facts are taken into consideration, then this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot claim that she is aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the respondent No.2, wherein the 19 cancellation of registration of respondent No.6 institution is restored. If the registration of respondent No.6 institution is restored, this Court is unable to understand as to how the petitioner is prejudiced by the restoration order passed by the respondent No.2. If the petitioner has a legitimate share in Sy.No.64/1 wherein the respondent No.6 institution is running a school, then in that event, the petitioner has to pursue her remedy before the competent civil court which is already seized at the instance of the petitioner and the same is pending for consideration in O.S.No.6771/2013.
16. Along with statement of objections, the respondent No.6 has placed on record the sanction plan and photographs indicating the construction of new building in Sy.No.64/1. Though the respondent authorities initiated an enquiry at the instance of the petitioner wherein a complaint was lodged by the petitioner alleging that respondent No.6 institution has played fraud on the authorities by furnishing wrong information, however, at the instance of the respondent No.2 20 authority, the Four Member Committee was constituted on 24.06.2020 to inspect the premises. The Four Member Committee have visited the institution who have recommended to withdraw and reverse the order by which registration of the school was cancelled. The relevant portion of the report of the Four Member Committee reads as under:
"3. zÁR¯ÉU¼À ÀÄ ªÄÀ vÀÄÛ ¸Àܼ À ¥jÀ ²Ã®£É¬ÄAz À PÀAqÄÀ §Az À CA±ÀU¼À ÀÄ F P¼É VÀ £AÀ wz:É 3.1 GµÁ JdÄPµÉ À£¯À ï ¥s˪ÀÄqÃÉ µÀ£ï, ©.n.JA.2£ÃÉ ºAÀ v,À ¨AÉ U¼À ÀÆgÀÄ- 560076 F Dq½À v À ªÄÀ Aq½À ¬ÄAz À D£ÃÉ P¯À ï vÁ®ÆPè ÀÄ, PªÀ ÀÄä¸AÀ zÀæ, º§É âUÉÆÃr E°Aè iÀÄ ¸ªÀ ðÉ £ÀA.64/1 E°èU É F vAÀ q À ¸ÀܼÀ ¨sÃÉ n ¤ÃrzÁUÀ £Áåµ£À ¯À ï ¥©À Pè ï ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï ¥ÁægAÀ ©¸ü ®À Ä 2019-20gÀ°è E¯ÁSÉU É ¸À°è¹gÀĪ À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÃÉ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆà zÁR¯ÉU¼À ÀÄ CxÀªÁ ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆv À ¸Ë®¨sÀåU½À U É ¸AÀ §A¢¹ü z À zÁR¯ÉU¼À ÀÄ/£ÀPÁ±UÉ ¼À ÀÄ/¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃU¼À £À ÀÄß ¥jÀ ²Ã®£ÉU É Dq½À v À ªÀÄAq½À MzVÀ ¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®.è 3.2 G¥¤À zÃÉ ð±PÀ ÀgÀÄ (Dq½À vÀ), ¨AÉ U¼À ÀÆgÀÄ zQÀ të EªgÀ À PbÀ ÃÉ jAiÀÄ°è ¤ªðÀ ¬Ä¸¯À ÁzÀ PqÀ vÀ zÀ À ¥jÀ ²Ã®£AÉ iÀÄ° è ªÉÄï É ºÃÉ ¼¯À Áz À ¸ÀܼzÀ À° è vAÀ qÀ ¨ÃsÉ nAiÀÄ ¸ªÀ ÀÄAiÀÄz°À è PqÀ vÀ zÀ °À è ºÃÉ ½gÀĪ À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÃÉ ¸Ë®¨sÀåU¼À ÀÄ PAÀ qÀħA¢®è. §z¯À ÁV ºÉƸ À PÀlÖq À ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀĪÀÅz£À ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸¯À Á¬ÄvÀÄ. 3.3 C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤Ãq¯À Áz À F ±Á¯Á ¸ÀܼPÀ ÉÌ 500 «ÄÃ.CAvgÀ ÀzÉƼUÀ É ²æñÁ JdÄPÃÉ µ£À ¯À ï ¸À«Ãð¸¸À ï J¯ï.J¯ï.¦ JA§ ¸AÀ ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¸ªÀ ðÉ £AÀ §gï 143/2 g°À £è À PÀlÖqzÀ °À è£ À £qÀ AÉ iÀÄÄwgÛ ÀĪ À ¥ÀƪðÀ ¥Áæx«À ÄP À ±Á¯AÉ iÀÄ° è ®¨sÀå«gÀĪ À 21 PÉÆoÀrU¼À À°è £Áåµ£À ¯À ï ¥À©Pè ï ¸ÀÆ̯ïAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÁvÁÌ°PªÀ ÁV ¸ÀܼÁAvÀj¹zÀÄÝ EzÀPÉÌ E¯ÁSÁ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¥qÀ AÉ iÀÄz É ±Á¯Á Dq½À v À ªÀÄAq½À v¥À Éà¸VÀ gÀÄvÁÛg.É 3.4 E¯ÁR £ÉÆÃAztÀ  ¥ÀƪÀðz°À è ¸AÀ ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪ À ªÀÄÆ®¨ÀÆs v À ¸ËPAÀ iÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¯ÁSÁ £ÉÆÃAzÀt  ªÀiÁ£ÀzAÀ qUÀ ¼À £À ÀÄß ¥jÀ ²Ã°¸®À Ä E¯ÁS¬É ÄAz À £ÃÉ «Ä¸¯À ÁzÀ wæ¸zÀ ¸À Àå ¸«À ÄwAiÀÄÄ F J¯Á è CA±UÀ ¼À £À ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÁ¸ªÀÛ ÁA±ªÀ ÀżÀî ªÀg¢À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸PÀ ÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢Pü ÁjU¼À Áz À G¥¤À zÃÉ ð±PÀ ÀgÀÄ (Dq½À v)À EªjÀ U É ¸°À ¸è ¨À ÃÉ PÁVvÀÄ.Û wæ ¸zÀ ¸À Àå ¸«À ÄwAiÀÄÄ vªÀ ÀÄÄä ªgÀ À¢AiÀÄ eÆÉ vUÉ É ¸°À è¹z À Building under ZPÉ ï °¸ïÖ£ À ¥Àj²Ã®£Á vAÀ qzÀ À C©¥ü ÁæAiÀÄz°À è " construction of finishing stage" JA§ÄzÁV C©¥ü Áæ¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ±Á¯UÉ É E¯ÁSÁ £ÉÆÃAztÀ ÂAiÉÆA¢U É C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤Ãrz À £AÀ vgÀ ÀªÃÉ F ¸ÀܼzÀ °À zè ÀÝ º¼À AÉ iÀÄ PÀlÖqÀª£À ÀÄß £®É ¸ªÀ ÀÄUÉƽ¹, ºvÀ ÀÄ Û wAU¼À °À è ºÉƸ À PÀlÖq À ¤«Äð¸¯À ÁVz.É F §UÉÎ Dq½À v À ªÀÄAq½À AiÀĪgÀ ÀÄ ¸Àº À vªÀ ÀÄä °Tv À ºÃÉ ½PAÉ iÀÄ°è ¥Àæ¸Á¦Û ¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É E¯ÁSÁ wæ¸zÀ ¸À Àå ¸«À ÄwAiÀÄÄ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁq¯À Áz À ªgÀ ¢À AiÀÄ° è AiÀiÁª À PÀlÖqzÀ À ªÄÀ Æ®¨sÀÆv À ¸ËPAÀ iÀÄðU¼À £À ÀÄß ¸«À ÄÃQÃë ¹ ªgÀ ¢À ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸AÀ ±AÀ iÀiÁ¸ÀàzªÀ ÁVz.É MmÁÖg É wæ¸Àz¸À Àå ¸À«ÄvAÀ iÀÄÄ ¸ªÀ ÀÄ¥ðÀ PÀªÁV ¸Àܼ À ¸«À ÄÃP Éë ªÀiÁqzÀ É vÀ¥ÄÀ à ªgÀ À¢AiÉÆA¢U É ²¥sÁg¸À ÀÄ ì ªÀiÁr ±Á¯Á £ÉÆÃAzÀt ¤ÃqÀĪ À ªÀÄÆ®P À F J¯Áè UÉÆAz®À U½À U É PÁgtÀ ªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PAÀ qÀħgÄÀ vÀÛz.É 3.5 ±Á¯É £qÉ ¸É ®À Ä GzÉÝò¸À¯Áz À d«ÄäUÉ ¸AÀ §A¢¹ü zAÀ v É PÀgÁgÀÄ ¨ÁrU É M¥ÀàAz À ªÀiÁrPÉÆq¯À Áz À ²æà GªÉÄñï gÉr Ø º¸É jÀ £°À ègÀĪ À D¹ÛU¼À À §UÉÎ ¹n ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄz°À è zÁªÉ ¸AÀ SÉå:
6771. 2013 gAÀ v É ¥ÀæPgÀ tÀ zÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, FªgÀ UÉ É EvÀåxðÀ ªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®.è F §UÉÎ ±Á¯Á Dq½À U À ªÀÄAq½À AiÀÄ ¸zÀ ¸À ÀågÁz À ²æà ªÀĺÃÉ ±ï gÉrØ EªgÀ ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄ Û EvgÀ À ¸zÀ ¸À ÀågÀÄ vªÀ ÀÄä 22 °Tv À ºÃÉ ½PAÉ iÀÄ°è M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁgÛ .É ±Á¯Á £ÉÆÃAztÀ  ¥Àæ¸ÁÛª£À É ¸°À ¸è ÀĪÁU À Dq½À v À ªÀÄAq½À AiÀĪgÀ ÀÄ F ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß E¯ÁSAÉ iÀÄ UªÀ ÀÄ£PÀ ÉÌ vAÀ ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 3.6 £Áåµ£À ¯À ï ¥©À Pè ï ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï ¥ÁægAÀ ©¸ü ®À Ä E¯ÁS¬É ÄAz À £ÉÆÃAztÀ A iÀiÁUÀĪÀ ªÉÆz¯À ÃÉ ¸zÀ jÀ à d«Ää£ À ¥Á®ÄUÁjP É §UÉÎ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄz°À è ¥ÀæPÀgtÀ ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PAÀ qÄÀ §gÀÄvzÀÛ .É ¸zÀ jÀ à ¸ªÀ ðÉ £AÀ §gï (64/1)£À°è ±Á±ÀévÀ PÀlÖq À ¤«Äð¸®À Ä ¸PÀ ªÀë ÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁg¢À Az À ¥gÀ ªÀ Á£ÀV ¥qÀ ÉzÀÄ ¤«Äð¹gÀÄvÀÝvÁÛg.É ªÀÄÄAzÀĪgÀ zÉ ÀÄ ±Á¯Á PÀlÖq À ¤ªÀiÁðt CxÀªÁ ±Á¯Á £ÉÆÃAztÀ  DzÃÉ ±Àª£À ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹ zÁª É EgÀĪ À §UÉÎ G¥¤À zÃÉ ð±PÀ ÀgÀÄ (Dq½À v)À , ¨AÉ U¼À ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQtë EªgÀ À PbÀ ÃÉ jAiÀÄ°è ¤ªðÀ »¸¯À Áz À PqÀ ÀvzÀ °À è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÃÉ ªÀiÁ»w PAÀ qÀħgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C£ÀĪÄÀ w ¤Ãq¯À Áz À ¸Àܼ À ¸ªÀ ðÉ £AÀ .64/1 g°À è ±Á¯É £qÀ ¸É ®À Ä AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁz À ±Á±Àév À PÀlÖqªÀ £À ÀÄß J¯Áè ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆv À ¸ËPAÀ iÀÄðU¼À ÉÆA¢U É ¤«Äð¹gÀÄvÁgÛ .É 3.7 F ±Á¯UÉ É E¯ÁSÁ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤Ãrz À £AÀ vÀg À (AiÀÄÄqÉÊ¸ï ¸ÀASÉå:
29200. 33731) 2019-20£ÃÉ ¸Á°U É 1-5£ÃÉ vgÀ UÀ wÀ ªgÀ UÉ É 63 ªÀÄA¢ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ SATS zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vAÀ vÁæA±¢À Az À w½zÀÄ §gÄÀ vÀÛz.É (21£ÃÉ dÆ£ï SATS2020À°zè ÀÝ vAÀ vÁæA±zÀ °À è£ À «ªÀg À C£ÀħAz-sÀ 03 ®UÀwÛ¹z)É . ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPgÀÛ ÀÄ, ¸Á.².E¯ÁS,É ¨AÉ UÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ eÁ¥Õ À£Á ¸ÀASÉå: ¹7 (3) ¥Áæ² C.±Á¯Á «zÀÆgÀÄ/26/2020-21 ¢£ÁAPÀ:
24. 06/2020gÀ eÁ¥Õ À£ÀzÀ° è w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ F ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÁßzsÀj¹ ªÀgÀ¢AiÄÀ Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀAwzÉ.
4. ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄÄ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹zÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°Aè iÉÄà £ÀqAÉ iÄÀ ÄwÛzÉAiÉÄÃ?. CxÀªÁ E®èªÃÉ ?. 4.1 2019-20£ÃÉ ¸Á°U É £Áåµ£À ¯À ï ¥À©zè ï ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £AÀ .64/1, PªÀ ÀÄä¸AÀ zæ,À º§É âUÉÆÃr, ¹.JA.¹. D£ÃÉ P¯À ï vÁ®ÆPè ÀÄ E° è ¥ÁægAÀ ©¸ü ®À Ä G¥¤À zÃÉ ±PÀ gÀ ÀÄ (Dq½À vÀ) ¨AÉ U¼À ÀÆgÀÄ zQÀ të f¯Éè EªgÀ À DzÃÉ ± À 23 ¸AÀ SåÉ:C£ÀÄ5/SÁ.¥Áæ.±Á.£ÉÆ/41/2019-20 ¢£ÁAP:À15/06/2019gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É DzgÀ É, ±Á¯Á PÀlÖqzÀ À £®É CAv¹À Ü£À° è vÀgUÀ wÀ £qÀ ¸É ®À Ä AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁVzÀÝgÀÆ PÉÆëqï-19 »£À߯AÉ iÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÃÉ vÀgUÀ wÀ UÀ¼£À ÀÄß £qÀ ¸É ÀÄwgÛ ÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzgÀ É ¨ÃsÉ n ¤Ãrz À ¸AÀ z¨À ðsÀ CAzgÀ É ¢£ÁAP:À08/07/2020 gAÀ zÀÄ F ¸ÀܼzÀ °À è ±Á¯Á PÀlqÖ À PÁªÀÄUÁj £qÀ AÉ iÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¸tÀ ¥Ú ÀÄlÖ P®É ¸UÀ ¼À ÀÄ ¨ÁQ EzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄPÁAÛ iÀÄ ºAÀ vzÀ °À ègÀÄvzÀÛ É ºÁUÆÀ PÀlqÖ Àz À ªÀÄÄRå ¨sÁUÀz°À è J¯Á è PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÀÆtðªÁVzÀÄÝ ±Á¯ É £qÀ ¸É ®À Ä ¸ÀĸdÀ ÓvÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, J¯Á è ¸Ë®¨sÀåU¼À ÀÄ ®¨sÀå«z.É 4.2 2019-20£ÃÉ ¸Á°£°À è F ±Á¯UÉ É £ÉÆÃAztÀ  ¤Ãq¯À Áz À d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ªÀ ðÉ £AÀ .64/1g°À è E¯ÁSÁ ªÀiÁ£zÀ AÀ qÀU¼À À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÄÀ Æ®¨sÀÆv À ¸ËPAÀ iÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆAr®èz É EzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ PÀlÖq À PÁªÀÄUÁj £qÀ ¸É ÀĪ À GzÉÝñÀ¢Az À F d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 500 «ÄÃ. CAvÀgzÀ ÉƼVÀ gÀĪ À ¸ªÀ ðÉ £AÀ .143/2, ²æñÁ JdÄPÃÉ µ£À ¯À ï LLP ¸«À Äð¸ï, PÀlÖqÀz°À è vgÀ ÀUwÀ U¼À À£ÀÄß £qÀ ¹É gÀÄvÁgÛ .É 5. ±Á¯Á £ÉÆÃAzÀt  C£ÀĪÀÄwUÁV ¤U¢À ü¥rÀ ¹gÀĪ À ªÀiÁ£zÀ AÀ qÀU¼À AÀ v É J¯Áè ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆv À ¸Ë®¨sÀåU¼À £À ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zAÉ iÉÄÃ?. CxªÀ Á E®èªÃÉ ?. 5.1 ±Á¯AÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹z À ¸Àܼ À ¸ªÀ ðÉ £AÀ .64/1g°À è ±Á¯AÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁægAÀ ©¸ü gÀ ®À Ä ¸ÀÆPªÀÛ ÁUÀĪ À jÃwAiÀÄ° è J¯Á è ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåU¼À £À ÀÄß M¼UÀ ÉÆAq À ºÉƸ À PÀlÖqªÀ £À ÀÄß ¤«Äð¹zÁÝg.É 5.2 ºÉƸ À PÀlÖqªÀ £À ÀÄß ¸ÀĸfÀ ÓvÀªÁV ¤«Äð¸¯À ÁVzÀÄÝ, vgÀ ÀUwÀ U¼À £À ÀÄß £qÀ ¸É ®À Ä ¸ÁPµÀ ÀÄ ë PÉÆorÀ U¼À ÀÄ, UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ, ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃUÁ®AiÀÄ, QÃÛ qÁ PÉÆorÀ , ²PPÀë gÀ À PÉÆoÀr, ªÀÄÄSÉÆåÃ¥ÁzsÁåAiÀÄg À PÉÆorÀ , E¤ßvÀg À ±ÉÊPÀëtÂP À ZÀlĪÀnPÉU½À UÉ ¨ÃÉ PÁz À ¸ÁPµÀ ÀÄÖ PÉÆoÀrU¼À £À ÀÄß ¤«Äð¹zÁÝg.É ªÄÀ Æ®¨sÀÆv À ¸ËPAÀ iÀÄðU½À UÁV ¤«Äð¹z À PÉÆoÀrU¼À À ¥ÀnÖ ªÀÄvÀÄ Û ¥ÉÆs ÃmÉÆà ¥ÀæwU¼À £À ÀÄß ®UwÀ ¹Û z.É (C£ÀħAzsÀ-4)."
24 17. If the recommendation of the Four Member Committee is examined, this Court would find that there are lapses on the part of the respondent No.6 institution in temporarily shifting the school at the distance of 500 meters. However, after having put up a new construction in Sy.No.64/1, the respondent No.6 institution has shifted the school back to Sy.No.64/1 wherein the registration/recognition was granted. The report also indicates that there were some discrepancies in the report submitted by the Three Member Committee. The report also indicates that the factual aspects were not correctly depicted in the inspection carried out by the Three Member Committee. At clause (3.6), it is stated that the school building is constructed after securing permission from the competent authority and the school building has all facilities. In the concluding paragraph 5 of the report, the committee has observed that the new building is full fledged and meets all criteria to run a full fledged school. The report also indicates that the institution has several class rooms, 25 library, laboratory, sports rooms, staff room and also principal chamber. The report also indicates that the building has several additional halls to carry out educational activities. The respondent No.2 having secured this report, reconsidered and has arrived at a conclusion to recall the cancellation and has restored the registration of the school.
18. The order under challenge is passed by the respondent No.2 after meticulous examination of the materials on record. This order of restoration of registration would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner's right, if any, in Sy.No.64/1. Under the garb of asserting her property rights, the petitioner unfortunately has ventured into dragging the respondent No.6 institution in an uncalled litigation on frivolous grounds. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Writs are issued to do substantial justice and therefore, the remedy under writ jurisdiction is not a matter of course. This Court has to certainly bear in mind the conduct 26 of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the material on record are examined, this Court would find that the petitioner's claim is not founded on valid grounds.
19. Essentially under public law, it is the dispute between citizen or a group of citizens on the one hand and the State or other pubic authority on the other, which is resolved. In the present case on hand, the petitioner is unable to make out a case of violation of fundamental rights on account of restoration of registration of school vide impugned order. This Court would also find that the petitioner has further failed to demonstrate on what grounds the order of restoration or registration of respondent No.6 is amenable to writ jurisdiction and therefore, warrants scrutiny on the touchstone of constitutional mandate. On meticulous examination of the order passed by the respondent No.2, this Court would find that the respondent No.2 after careful analysis of the report submitted by the Four Member Committee has ordered for restoration of registration of respondent No.6 institution and 27 this Court would find that the restoration of respondent No.6 institution by respondent No.2 is well within his jurisdiction. The order under challenge does not suffer from any arbitrariness or illegality and does not infringe the rights of the petitioner. Accordingly, point No.1 formulated above is answered in the negative. Re: Point No.2: Locus Standi:
20. In the preceding paragraphs, this Court has taken note of the claim of the petitioner. She has filed a partition suit in the year 2013 seeking her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. Recently, an amendment application is filed to incorporate the prayer to question the registered partition deed to which the petitioner is also a party. Therefore, the question that would arise for consideration is whether petitioner has a locus standi to question the order of restoration of registration passed by the respondent No.2. Neither Article 32 nor Article 226 of the Constitution of India 28 does describe the persons who are entitled to apply for a writ. In absence of any such guide, the Courts often apply the English Certiorari concept of a 'person aggrieved'. Overruling the common notion that a stranger cannot move the writ Court, the Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Seethalakshmi Ammal vs. State of Tamilnadu1 has held that a stranger is a 'person aggrieved' and has locus standi to move the Court for a right in common with the general public. But, however, the person who raises a grievance must show that he/she has suffered legal injury. There is no dispute with regard to legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the 1 AIR1993Madras 1 29 Constitution of India. Though the orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law and though constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach, such liberal approach cannot be extended to each and every case, where petitioner prima facie fails to make out a case that he/she has suffered a legal injury.
21. Therefore, the law on the said point can be summarized to the effect that the person who raises a grievance must show how he/she has suffered a legal injury. Any violation by the respondent No.6 institution under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act or any other Rules would not affect the rights of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner is agitating her property rights before the competent civil Court, that in itself would not give a legal right in favour of the petitioner to act as a watchdog over the affairs of the respondent No.6 institution. Therefore, this Court is unable to 30 understand as to how the petitioner can plead grievance on account of the order passed by the respondent No.2 where the cancellation of recognition/registration of respondent No.6 is restored. Insofar as the affairs and management of respondent No.6 institution is concerned, the petitioner is an absolute stranger and having no right whatsoever over the management and functioning of the respondent No.6 institution, petitioner cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of the respondent No.6 institution.
22. If petitioner has no concern in the administration and management of the school, merely because she has filed a suit for partition, that in itself would not give her a right to interfere with the management and affairs of the school. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi even if there are some infractions and violation by the respondent No.6 institution. The respondent No.2 having regard to the interest of the students who are pursuing their studies in the school has rightly taken a lenient view and has 31 restored registration. If petitioner has any grievance, that should be confined to civil proceedings. Cause of action:
23. The cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport, must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The entire bundle of facts pleaded should prima facie indicate and constitute a cause of action. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis where a prayer can be granted. Though facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the constitutional Courts, the facts pleaded in the present case leads to inference that the petitioner intends to extend the scope of litigation in respect of a property rights even in a writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has made a feeble attempt to contend that she has a legitimate right in the property bearing 32 Sy.No.64/1. Therefore an attempt is made to make out a case that the managing trustee of respondent No.6 institution obtained recognition by playing fraud on the authorities.
24. If the entire pleadings and the counter filed by the contesting respondent No.6 in the statement of objections are meticulously examined, this Court would not hesitate to hold that in the present case on hand, the petitioner had no cause of action to question the restoration of the registration conferred on the respondent No.6. Even on this count also, the petition must fail. Accordingly, point No.2 formulated above is answered in the negative.
25. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE CA