Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P. KRISHNA BHAT, J.
We Care Charitable Trust – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1682 of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21A, 226 – Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958 – Habeas corpus – Mandamus – Quo warranto – Prohibition – Certiorari – Petitioner wants to upgrade its existing school by opening classes for Standards 9th and 10th – Grievance of petitioner is that its applications have not been properly considered by respondents and they were rejected – Para 7.
Finding of the court: There is thus no doubt that High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala-fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate object of conferring such discretion or policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred – In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel performance in a proper and lawful manner of discretion conferred upon government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to concerned parties, Court may itself pass an order or give directions which government or public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.
Results: Writ petition is disposed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
(ii) Quash the impugned order dated 23.09.2021 bearing No. C8 (3) Sha.Shi.Aa.Himbaraha/1/2020-21 issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Annexure-P.
(iii) Further direct the Respondents to consider the application produced vide Annexure-G.
(iv) Pass any order of consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner wants to upgrade its existing school by opening classes for Standards 9th and 10th. The grievance of the petitioner is that its applications have not been properly considered by the respondents and they were rejected.
3. After making his submission for sometime, learned counsel Sri. M.P. Srikanth stated that the petitioner has already filed a fresh application seeking permission from the respondents to upgrade the school by starting classes for 9th and 10th standard for the academic year 2022-2023 and suitable direction may be issued by this court to consider the same and dispose it of within a reasonable time.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection for the same and he submits that if the petitioner has filed an application, respondents are bound to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon.
5. Large number of litigations are coming up before this Court alleging failure on the part of respondents to consider the applications seeking approval for upgradation of the schools advancing two contentions; namely, such applications are not disposed of within a time bound manner and such applications are disposed of without giving proper and intelligible reasons. Disposal of the applications in a time bound manner is extremely essential as the applications are filed for specific academic year and if the decision making authorities take too long a time for disposing of the applications, the academic year itself would have been over rendering the applications irrelevant or infructuous. It is necessary for the respondents to bear in mind the fact that the applications are filed by paying considerably high amount of fees and if the applications are not considered by them and disposed of within a reasonable time, it will entail great hardship to the petitioner. It is also necessary for the respondents to keep in mind that they are bound to give reasons for granting or refusing to grant permission. The applicants like petitioner are entitled to know the reasons as to why a particular decision has been taken on the application either granting or refusing to grant permission [Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496]. Assigning reasons for refusal of permission would help the petitioner to fulfill the deficiencies so that when they make a fresh application, they could do so in a proper manner in order to be successful during the next time. Even otherwise, the public authorities vested with public powers are expected to exercise such powers in a reasonable manner which includes taking decisions within a reasonable time and also the concomitant duty demand that the authorities give proper reasons for their decisions.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with considerable anguish that the petitioner has been making efforts to secure approval for upgrading its existing school by opening classes for Standards 9th and 10th and towards this end it had made application for the academic year 2019-20 by paying a large amount of application fee of Rs. 1 Lakh. He submitted that the application was processed by the respondents in such a manner that the report of the Three Member Committee pointing out the deficiency in the Institution were not made known to the petitioner so as to provide an opportunity to recti
Point of Law : Article 21A of the Constitution reads as Right to education - The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner a....
The legal principle established is that the competent authority for upgradation of school recognition lies with the Director of Matriculation Schools.
The High Courts in India have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Go....
Procedural fairness and natural justice must be observed in administrative decisions, and all relevant evidence should be considered before making a decision.
The court upheld the refusal to grant the upgrade of a teacher's post, emphasizing the availability of further legal remedies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, which determined the mandatory and optional nature of obtaining....
A rejection of an application based on valid deficiencies, including lack of basic facilities, does not constitute willful disobedience of a court order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of approval and the impugned letter were not legally sustainable, and a mandamus cannot be issued to grant retrospective reco....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
