IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

W.P. NO.70258/2012(EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA EDUCATION BOARD,

DHARWAD BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.: V P KULKARNI, ADV.)

AND

1 .

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BANGALORE-560001.

2 .

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

OF PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AND

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASOORAMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 )

THIS

WRIT

PETITION

IS

FILED

UNDER

ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DATED

27.06.2012

ISSUED

BY

THE

DEPUTY

DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AND

2

PROFESSIONAL

EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT,

DHARWAD, VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner has sought for writ of certiorari to

quash the order dated 27.06.2012 issued by the Deputy

Director of Pre-University College and Professional

Education Department, Dharwad vide Annexure-E.

2.

The

facts

briefly

stated

are

that

the

petitioner

society

is

running

various

educational

institutions in the Dharwad city and the State

Government permitted the petitioner to run Pre-

University college. In the year 1977, the school was

granted grant-in-code and the salary of the employee

was paid by the State Government. The management

has to collect the prescribed fees from the students and

have to utilize the same as per circular and directions of

the State Government. The petitioner institution has

3

been collecting the fees as per the State Government

regulations and utilizing the same. Respondent No.2

has issued an order directing the petitioner to deposit

the entire tuition fees from 2006 to 2012 to the State

Government as per Annexure-E. The order passed by

the second respondent is without jurisdiction and

contrary to rules and regulations. The said order

cannot be sustained in law.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned HCGP. Perused the records and Annexure-

E.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that under the guise of issuing Annexure-E,

respondent No.2 has directed the petitioner institution

to pay the entire tuition fees to the State Government as

per Annexure-C. The petitioner school management is

entitled to utilize 50% of the tuition fees as per rules

4

and regulations of the State. Thus, Annexure-E is

contrary to Annexure-C.

5.

Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there

is no specific direction or order to the petitioner to pay

the entire tuition fees. But, it is only a request to the

petitioner to furnish the audit reports of the year 2011-

12 and also the details of the tuition fees collected by

the management from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013 from 1^st

and 2^nd year PUC students.

6.

In view of submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner and learned HCGP, the points that

would arise for consideration is :

Whether Annexure-E amounts to a direction

for respondent No.2 for payment of the entire

tuition fees collected by the petitioner from I

and II year PUC students to the State

Government?

5

7.

On perusal of the Annexure-E, it is evident

that there is no such direction or order by the

respondent No.2 to the petitioner to pay the entire

tuition fees collected from I and II year PUC students.

The Annexure-E is only a letter seeking information

regarding the tuition fees collected from 2006-2007 to

2012-2013. Thus, the letter at Annexure-E cannot be

interpreted as direction to petitioner No.1 and the same

is not opposed to law. The writ petition lacks merit.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MNS/