Gunashree Vidyalaya Ii Siddakatte Higher Primary School v. Secretary To The Govt.

S. Sujatha, J.:— The petitioner is assailing the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the first respondent in appeal No. 121/2014 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner society has been running a high school under the name and style “Gunashree Vidyalaya II” at Siddakatte, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District since 2009. It is contended that the said institution has been running under the name of “Hegdes Educational Trust ®” since 2000-01. In the year 2009, the said institution was taken over by the petitioner educational trust. The fourth respondent herein filed an application before the second respondent seeking permission to run a new school in the very same area in Siddakatte, Bantwal Taluk. The second respondent considering the application of the fourth respondent, has granted permission for the same. This order of granting permission was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Education Appellate Authority which came to be disposed of, affirming the order of permission granted by the second respondent. However, directed the petitioner to shift the school to other building. Hence this petition challenging the order of the Appellate Authority primarily, on the ground that the distance aspect prescribed under the circular issued by the third respondent as well as the provisions of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Certification and Regulation Rules 1997) (‘Rules’ for short) are not properly appreciated by the Authority while disposing of the appeal under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (‘Act’ for short).

3. Learned counsel Sri. Rajaram. S, appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Srishail Kullappa Biradara v. The State of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 8663/2006 D.D.13.04.2011) would submit that the sanctity of the circular issued by the third respondent is not enforced, the distance aspect is given a go-by while granting the permission to the fourth respondent school. Though the judgment of Srishall Kullappa Biradara (supra), was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, no findings are given on this point. The Appellate Authority merely proceeded to observe that the fourth respondent shall shift the school to a different building. The order impugned herein is perverse, passed without addressing the arguments advanced by the petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel seeks for setting aside the order impugned herein.

4. In contrast, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submits that the Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSOCIATED MANAGEMENT OF (GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED UNAIDED ENGLISH MEDIUM) PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 485 : AIR 2014 SC 2094 disposed of the appeal. Moreover, pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the respondent has shifted the English medium school from Sanghabetta village to Kukkepadi village of Bantwal Taluk. That being so, the arguments addressed at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner do not inspire any confidence and the same requires to be negatived.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. It emerges that no findings are forthcoming in the impugned order addressing the arguments advanced by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. After recording the arguments advanced by both the parties, the Authority proceeded to pass the order based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra. There is no dispute in as much as granting the registration and recognition to run the English medium school as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. But the dispute involved herein is as regards maintaining of the distance as provided under the Rule 4 (iv) of the Rules coupled with the circular instructions issued by the respondent No. 3. This issue requires to be addressed by the Appellate Authority keeping in mind the judgment of this Court in Srishall Kullappa Biradara (supra). The submission of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent as regards shifting of the school is the factual aspect which requires to be adjudicated before the Authority particularly, with the distance and population factor. Given the circumstances, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter afresh.

7. In the result, the impugned order at Annexere-A is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority, keeping open all the contentions to be urged by the parties, to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made herein above.

8. This exercise shall be done by the Authority as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.