1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

WRIT PETITION NO.53608/2016 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.

DR. PRADEEP P.R

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

SON OF RANGASWAMY,

NO.86, 14D CROSS,

2^ND STAGE, 2^ND PHASE,

MAHALAKSHMI PURAM,

BANGALORE - 86.

2.

DR. CHANDRASHEKAR

SON OF RANGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

#216, BRIGADE SOLITAIRE,

SIDDARATH NAGAR,

MYSORE - 570 011.

3.

DR. SUNIL

AGED 40 YEARS,

SON OF MR.RAJEEVA SHETTY,

C-804, GOPALAN RESIDENCY,

TELECOM LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,

BANGALORE - 23.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR & LEX NEXUS, ADVOCATES (ABSENT))

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF

HEALTH SCIENCES KARNATAKA

2

BANGALORE, 4^TH T BLOCK,

JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 41,

BY ITS REGISTRAR.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SREEDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1

SRI. N.K. RAMESH ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEX-F THE ORDERS

PASSED BY THE R-1 GOVERNMENT DTD.8.8.2016 AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B

GROUP

THROUGH

VIDEO

CONFERENCING/

PHYSICAL

HEARING

(OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

None appears for the petitioners. Matter is pending

consideration for the last six years.

2.

In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for

the following reliefs:-

a)

Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to

quash

Annexure-F

the

order

bearing

No.AKU.KA.425

RGU

2015

dated

08.08.2016

passed by the 1^st respondent.

2)

Pass such other orders as may be

deemed appropriate under the circumstances of

the case, in the ends of justice and equity.

3.

The impugned communication dated 08.08.2016 is

an internal communication between the Government and the

Vice Chancellor, The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

3

Bengaluru. The issue is relating to construction of University

Campus

at

Archakarahalli

Village

at

Ramanagara

taluk,

Bengaluru Rural District. The internal communication is only

relating to expediting the proposed construction of University

campus and it is a policy decision which cannot be interfered by

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless

there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or

Arbitrariness.

4.

Apex court in the case of PARISONS AGROTECH

(P) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 657

held as under:

“15. In Union of India v. Dinesh Engg. Corpn. [(2001) 8

SCC 491], this Court delineated the aforesaid principle of

judicial review in the following manner: (SCC pp. 498-

99, para 12

“12. There is no doubt that this Court has held in

more than one case that where the decision of the

authority is in regard to the policy matter, this Court will

not ordinarily interfere since these policy matters are

taken based on expert knowledge of the persons

concerned and courts are normally not equipped to

question the correctness of a policy decision. But then

this does not mean that the courts have to abdicate their

right to scrutinise whether the policy in question is

formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the

4

said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of

discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the

material on record. Any decision, be it a simple

administrative decision or a policy decision, if taken

without considering the relevant facts, can only be

termed as an arbitrary decision. If it is so, then be it a

policy decision or otherwise, it will be violative of the

mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

17. The aforesaid doctrine of separation of power

and limited scope of judicial review in policy matters is

reiterated in State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash [(2005)

13 SCC 495 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1