Good-luck Education Society Rep. by Its Secretary and Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secretary Education Department (Primary and Secondary Education) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- specific relief act, 1963 [c.a. no. 47/1963]section 20; [s.r.bannurmath & a.n.venugopala gowda, jj] grant of specific performance of an agreement to sell - appeal against - held, on a detail reading documents clearly indicates that, the intention of the party was never to go for sale of the property. one of the clause in the agreement further indicated that, even in case where vendor fails to execute the registered sale deed and even where the purchaser is ready with the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period, then the vendor is only required to refund the advance sale consideration along with liquidated damages at the rate of 3% per month or 36% per annum. it was only a loan transaction and the agreement came to be executed as or by way of security and both the parties never intended to act upon it as an agreement of sale. looking at the case from any angle, impugned judgment and decree is unsustainable and the same are liable to be set aside. v.g. sabhahit, j.1. these appeals are filed by the petitioners in w.p. no. 14354/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2009, wherein the learned single judge of this court has declined to grant the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.2. the appellants herein filed w.p. no. 14354/2008 seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue hall tickets to 16 students admitted in the second petitioner - institution as per annexure 'd' to the writ petition and to permit them to appear for the examinations for the first year d.ed course, scheduled to commence from 17.11.2008 and also to declare the results.3. in the said writ petition, interim order was passed on 14.11.2008 permitting the 16 students admitted by the second petitioner - institution to take examination subject to the result of the writ petition.4. learned single judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned additional government advocate for respondents 1 to 3, by order dated 25.08.2009, held that: as per the calendar of events for d.ed., course for the academic year 2007-2008 published by the authority, the last date for admission under the management quota was fixed as 14.12.2007 and the list of students was required to be submitted to the competent authority for approval on or before 31.12.2007 and the competent authority had to approve the said list on or before 10.01.2008 and the d.ed., course had to commence on 21.11.2007; however, the material on record disclosed that the writ petitioners, having obtained the interim order on 14.11.2008, sent the list of admitted students to the competent authority only on 19.11.2008 i.e., after the examination had commenced on 17.11.2008 and the said fact had been suppressed in the writ petition; therefore, the admissions made by the writ petitioners defying the calendar of events could not be encouraged; the said illegal act of making admissions so as to circumvent the cut-off dates prescribed by the authorities to ensure proper training of the students, who are undergoing the d.ed., course and such institutions did not deserve any kind of sympathy or concession. accordingly, the learned single judge held that the writ petition is devoid of merit and dismissed the writ petition. being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, petitioners have preferred this appeal.5. we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned additional government advocate appearing for the respondents.6. learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned single judge has proceeded on the basis that the list of admitted students was sent to the respondents on 19.11.2008 i.e., after passing of the interim order by this court on 14.11.2008 and was not submitted on or before 31.12.2007 as required. in fact, the appellants have submitted the list of admitted students to the respondents on 13.12.2007 and wherefore, the order of the learned single judge is liable to be set aside.7. learned additional government advocate argued in support of the order passed by the learned single judge.8. we have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record.9. the material on record would clearly show that as per the calendar of events for d.ed., course for the academic year 2007-2008 published by the authorities, the last date for admission under the management quota was fixed on 14.12.2007 and the list of students was required to be submitted to the competent authority for approval on or before 31.12.2007 and the competent authority had to approve the said list on or before 10.01.2008 and the d.ed., course had to commence on 21.11.2007. according to the material on record, the appellants (writ petitioners) submitted the list of 16 students for approval only on 19.11.2008 after examination had commenced on 17.11.2008 and after obtaining the interim order in the writ petition on 14.11.2008. having regard to the above said material on record, the learned single judge has rightly proceeded on the basis that admission of the students in defiance of the calendar of events published by the authorities cannot be encouraged and having regard to the material available on record as on the date of the decision of the learned single judge, the said order is justified. however, it is the contention of the appellants herein (writ petitioners) that as per the additional document produced, the list of students had been sent to the competent authority well in time on 13.12.2007, however, the said document was not produced before the learned single judge and it is open to the appellants (writ petitioners) to produce the said document and make an application for review of the order passed by the learned single judge. apart from permitting the appellants (writ petitioners) to file application for review of the order passed by the learned single judge, the appellants are not entitled to any relief in these writ appeals.accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed with the above said observations.