2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J
Vision India Public School – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 9685 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin A.M
For the Respondents: Navya Shekar
The State cannot indefinitely withhold statutory RTE reimbursements for EWS admissions under the guise of "verification" or "discrepancies" without deciding on the representations submitted by the educational institution.
Headnote:(A) Right to Education (RTE) Act - Reimbursement of Fees - State's obligation to reimburse schools for EWS admissions - Withholding reimbursement on the grounds of "discrepancies" without formal adjudication of representations is impermissible and defeats the object of welfare legislation. (Para 7)
(B) Administrative Law - Duty of Promptitude - Administrative authorities are bound to act with fairness and promptness regarding statutory entitlements; inaction on representations warrants the issuance of a writ of mandamus. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether the respondents can indefinitely withhold RTE reimbursement based on alleged discrepancies without considering the petitioner's representations.
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 06/10/2023, 18/12/2023, 23/01/2024, 15/07/2024 AND 07/10/24 I.E. ANNX-D1, D2, D3, D4, E1 AND E2 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"a) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to consider the representations Dt. 06-10-2023, 18-12-2023, 23-01-2024, 15-07-2024 & 07-10-2024 i.e., ANNEXURE-D1, D2, D3, D4, E1 & E2 respectively;
b) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the representations Dt. 05-11-2025, 03-01-2025 & 05-02-2025 i.e., ANNEXURE-F1, H & L respectively;
c) To direct Respondent No.2 to 4 to restore the user ID and Password of the Petitioner and permit the Petitioner to apply for the 4 pending installments of RTE reimbursements for the academic year 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25.
d) To direct the Respondent No.4 to ensure that the pending 4 installments of RTE reimbursement for the academic year 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 are paid to the Petitioner School;
e) And to grant such other order or relief to which the Petitioner may be found entitled to under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
The petitioner is an educational institution engaged in imparting education at the primary and secondary levels and is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, in strict compliance with the mandate contained under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, “RTE Act”) and the Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules , the institution has admitted students belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) to the extent of 25% of the intake. It is further averred that for the academic years 2022–23 and 2023–24, such admissions have been duly effected and, cumulatively, the petitioner–institution has imparted education to as many as 158 students under the said quota for the period from the academic year 2016–17 up to 2022–23.
The gist of the petitioner’s grievance is that, despite having submitted the online application seeking reimbursement of the second instalment under the RTE scheme for the academic year 2022–23, the same has not been released till date. It is contended that repeated representations have been submitted to the respondent– authorities, however, there has been inaction and palpable apathy in considering the same. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the reimbursement amount lawfully due.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that certain discrepancies are noticed in the admissions made by the petitioner–institution and, therefore, the competent authority is required to verify and examine such discrepancies before processing and releasing the reimbursement.
This Court, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material on record, finds that the petitioner–institution has placed on record documents indicating compliance with the statutory requirements under the RTE framework, including admission of students under the EWS quota and the corresponding entitlement for reimbursement.
The contention advanced by the respondents that discrepancies exist in the admission process cannot be countenanced as a ground to indefinitely withhold the reimbursement legitimately due to the petitioner. Under the scheme of the RTE Act, once students are admitted and education is imparted under the 25% reservation, the corresponding obligation is cast upon the State to ensure timely reimbursement