- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15453 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. VIDHYAASHRAM EDUCATION FOUNDATION NO.22, CRESCENT ROAD CROSS, HIGH GROUNDS, KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU - 560 001. ALSO AT: NO.12, TEMPLE ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU - 570 012. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED FOUNDER AND TRUSTEE K. RAKESH RAJE URS S/O LATE G. KRISHNE URS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 2. SRI. P.N. HARISH S/O NAACHAPPA P.B. MANAGER/MEMBER/ADMINISTRATOR, ROYALE CONCORDE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CA SITE NO.2, BOGADI 2ND STAGE, NORTH EXTENSION, MYSURU - 570 026. ....PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJESHWARA P.N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 AND: 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SHIKSHA KENDRA, NO.2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 110 092. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION NO.XG28 + XF5, CHANDRA LAYOUT EXTENSION, II STAGE, GNANA BHARATHI MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072. 3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER MYSURU SOUTH, J.L.B. ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 004. 4. ROYALE CONCORDE EDUCATIONAL TURST A REGISTERED TRUST WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.42, 'SUDHA MANSION' 1ST CROSS, 7TH MAIN BANAGIRI HILLS, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES (a). SRI. L.R. SHIVARAMEGOWDA (b). SMT. SUDHA SHIVARAMEGOWDA (c). SRI. L.S. CHETAN GOWDA (d). SMT. L.S. BHAVYA GOWDA (e). SMT. SHRUTHI C. GOWDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 5. SRI. N. SHIVAPRASAD S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.29, SRT TOWER, OUTER RING ROAD, SERVICE ROAD, CHALEKERE, BENGALURU - 560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAILENDRA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R3; SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. JACOB ALEXANDER, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 24TH MAY, 2025, E-MAIL DATED 08TH MARCH, 2025, EMAIL DATED 11TH MARCH, 2025, LETTER DATED 14TH MARCH, 2025 TO RESTORE THE ACCESS TO LOGIN INTO OASIS PORTAL, CBSE SHIKSHA E-MAIL ID, SARAS PORTAL, SATS PORTAL IN RESPECT OF THE ROYAL CONCORDE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURES 'A' TO 'A4'; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESTORE THE ACCESS TO THE SATS PORTAL IN RESPECT OF ROYAL CONCORDE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A1; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO RESTORE THE STATUS ANTE AS ON 07TH MARCH, 2025 BY RECTIFYING THE UPLOADED DOCUMENTS AND CHANGES EFFECTED IN THE OASIS PORTAL DURING THE PERIOD 07TH MARCH, 2025 TILL RESTORATION OF STATUS QUO ANTE AS 07TH MARCH, 2025; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO INSPECT AND SUBMIT THE REPORT TO THIS HON'BLE COURT AS REQUIRED UNDER BYE-LAW NO.11.5 OF CBSC AFFILIATION BYE-LAWS, BY CONSIDERING THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 24TH MAY, 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A' AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV ORDER In this writ petition, petitioners have sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 24th May, 2025 (Annexure-A) and e-Mail dated 08th March, 2025 (Annexure-A2), 11th March, 2025 (Annexure-A3) and letter dated 14th March, 2025 (Annexure-A4), seeking restoration of the access to login into OASIS Portal, CBSE Shiksha e-Mail ID, SARAS Portal, SATS Portal in respect of Royal Concorde International School, Mysuru; inter alia sought for restoring the status quo ante as on 07TH March, 2025 by rectifying the uploaded documents and the changes made thereunder and direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to submit report to this Court as per Bye-law No.11.5 of CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws and to conduct enquiry with regard to ascertaining the proprietary of the School in question. 2. Heard Sri. Rajeshwara P.N., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Shailendra M.R., learned counsel - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Smt. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3; and Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Jacob Alexander, appearing fro respondents 4 and 5. 3. Sri. P.N. Rajeshwara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the respondent No.5 had committed illegality in interfering with the administration of the School run by the petitioners, which is mainly constituted to run, support and grant aid or financial assistance to schools, colleges etc. It is further argued by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the respondent No.1 at the instance of the respondent No.5 had unilaterally, without reference to the existing School Management Committee or the Principal of the School, changed the password of the School in question and in this regard, the petitioners addressed letters to the respondents 1 and 2 for inspection of the schools and further addressed letter to the respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry under Rule 3-A(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification and Registration) Rules, 1997 read with Karnataka Educational - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 Institutions (Control of Private Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999, however, the respondent-Authorities have not considered the same. It is further argued by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the respondents 1 and 2, without contacting the existing Principal of the school, have changed the portals of the schools, which would affect the day to day administration of the school including the admission of the students as well as the examination to be conducted in the school. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners further argued that, disturbance in respect of running of the school would affect the academic atmosphere and the interests of the students. He also contended that the respondent No.5 is trying to disturb the running of the school by changing the access to login and also the respondent No.5 is illegally changed the name of the Principal in the OASIS Portal, CBSE Shiksha e-Mail ID, SARAS Portal, SATS Portal, resulting in jeopardize the interests of the students and their parents in the school. He further contended that the respondents 1 and 2 have hand-in-glove with the respondent No.5 for extraneous consideration which would jeopardize the career of the students. He also refers to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 Memorandum of Agreement dated 11th December, 2023 (Annexure-H) and argued that the respondents 1 and 2 have committed an error in changing the portals which would affect the rights of the petitioners and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Sri. P.N. Rajeshwara, learned counsel appearing for petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the order of appointment of the Principal of the School in question at Annexure-F and submitted that the appointment of the Principal of the School is made known to the respondent-State and the respondent-CBSE. He further invited the attention of the Court to the inspection report of the respondent-State Authorities produced at Annexure-G with regard to the admission of the RTE students and the letter dated 04th July, 2023 (Annexure-G1) addressed by the respondent No.4-Trust to the Joint Director, Department of Public Instructions, Mysuru with regard to School Managing Committee Member details and submitted that the petitioners herein have informed the respondent-State Authorities with regard to functioning of the School, appointments made to the teaching and non-teaching staff as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 well as the admissions of the students made in the School and thereafter, the respondent-Authorities have permitted the Principal of the School to enter into the functioning of the School viz., SATS Profile of Royal Concorde International School. Accordingly, he contended that the respondent-State Authorities have allowed the petitioners herein for co-ordination in functioning of the School, however, the respondents 1 and 2 have failed to consider the same and therefore sought for interference of this Court. Emphasising on these aspects, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that, there is no impediment for respondents 1 and 2 to inspect the school in question as to ascertain the functioning by the petitioners and take decision in the matter with regard to access with the website. He also refers to the prayer made in Comm. AA No.140/2025 (Annexure-AA) and submitted that the petitioner is running the School Management and accordingly, sought for direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the access to login in respect of the Royal Concord International School, Mysuru. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 6. Per contra, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 argued that the prayer made in the writ petition does not survive for consideration as the petitioners herein have no legal right to interfere with the respondent No.4-Trust. He further argued that the petitioner No.1 herein had filed Original Suit No.402 of 2025 (Annexure-R) before the Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mysuru; the petitioner No.2 had filed Original Suit No.689 of 2025 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru (Annexure-S) and application in Com. AA No.140 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner No.1 on the file of the Commercial Court, Benglauru (CCH-89), wherein the locus of the petitioners herein to manage the affairs of the school in question is yet to be decided and therefore, argued that, no interference be called for in this writ petition. 7. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel further invited the attention of the Court to the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11th December, 2023 (Annexure-H) as well as the termination of the said agreement at the instance of the petitioners herein as per legal notice dated 15th July, 2024 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 (Annexure-R6) and argued that, as the petitioners themselves have cancelled the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11th December, 2023, the petitioners have no legal right to claim relief as sought for in the representations produced at Annexures 'A' to 'A4'. Referring to Clause 5 of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11th December, 2023, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa submitted that, since the agreement itself is cancelled by the petitioners themselves as per Annexure-R6, the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 referred to various litigations filed by the petitioners and contended that, it is clear case of abuse of process of law by the petitioners on account of cancellation of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11th December, 2023 (Annexure-H) as per the Legal Notice dated 15th July, 2024 (Annexure-R6) and pursue their writ petition without locus standi and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of writ petition by imposing exemplary costs. 9. Sri. 9. Sri. M.R. Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 reiterates the averments made in the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 statement of objections and contended that the original portal was opened at the instance of the respondent No.5 and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 is nothing to do with the claim made by either of the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. Smt. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that the disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition and therefore, no interference be called for in the petition. 11. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioners have made a claim for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the access of aforementioned portals. It is also to be noted that the petitioner No.1-Trust on the one side and the respondent No.4-Trust and respondent No.5 together on the other side claiming ownership/management in respect of the school in question. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that the petitioner No.1-Trust had filed Original Suit No.402 of 2025 (Annexure-R) against the respondents 4 and 5, seeking declaration that the petitioner No.1-Trust is entitled to run, manage, administer and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 to carryon the day-to-day affairs of the school in question. In Original Suit No.689 of 2025, the petitioner No.2 herein claims to be the Manager/Member/Administrator of the school in question, seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.5 herein to interfere with the administration of the school in question. Apart from this, the petitioner No.1 has filed Com.AA No.140 of 2025 before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, seeking relief based on the agreement referred to at Annexure- H. The relief sought for by the petitioners in the petition is based on the relationship between the parties having contractual obligation under the agreement. 12. On careful examination of the Legal Notice dated 15th July, 2024 (Annexure-R6) particularly, at paragraph No.24, it is categorically stated that the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11th December, 2023 (Annexure-H) stands cancelled and terminated at the instance of the petitioners. If such being the case, as the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11th December, 2023 referred to at Annexure-H stands cancelled at the instance of the petitioners herein, the petitioners herein have no locus to claim any relief under the said agreement by contending that the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 school in question being run by them. That apart, disputed question of facts are involved in the writ petition and therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also to be noted that the claim of the petitioners is to be adjudicated in the aforementioned suits and commercial application. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the Constitutional Bench in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs. T.R. VARMA reported in AIR 1957 SC 882, wherein at paragraph 6, it is held as follows: 6. At the very outset, we have to observe that a writ petition under Art.226 is not the appropriate proceeding for adjudication of disputes like the present. Under the law, a person whose services have been wrongfully terminated, is entitled to institute an action to vindicate his rights, and in such an action, the Court will be competent to award all the reliefs to which he may be entitled, including some which would not be admissible in a writ petition. It is well-settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ; but, as observed by this Court in Raghid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, 1950 SCR 566: (AIR 1950 SC 163) (A) "the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs". Vide also K. S. Rashid and Son v. The Income-tax Investigation Commission, 1954 SCR 738 AT P.747: (AIR 1954 SC 207 AT P.210) (B). And where such remedy exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Art. 226, unless there are good grounds therefor. None such appears in the present case. On the other hand, the point for determination in this petition whether the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case, turns mainly on the question whether he was prevented from cross- examining the witnesses, who gave evidence in support of the charge. That is a question on which there is a serious dispute, which cannot be satisfactorily decided without taking evidence. It is not the practice of Courts to decide questions of that character in a writ petition, and it would have been a proper exercise of discretion in the present case if the learned Judges had referred the respondent to a suit." - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 13. It is also relevant to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERNATIONAL INC. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2015)7 SCC 728, wherein, at Paragraph 68 to 71 held as under: "68. The Court thereafter summarised the legal position in the following manner : (ABL International Ltd. case [(2004) 3 SCC 553] , SCC pp. 572, paras 27- 28) “27. From the above discussion of ours, following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. 28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] .) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.” 69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, “normally”, the Court would not exercise such a discretion: 69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. 69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. 70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties, can be summarised as under: 70.1. At the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness. 70.2. State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practise some discriminations. 70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases the Court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 70.4. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred. 70.5. Writ petition was not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation. Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so : and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business. 70.6. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages. 70.7. Writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law or if it can be shown that action of the public authorities was without giving any hearing and violation of principles of natural justice after holding that action could not have been taken without observing principles of natural justice. 70.8. If the contract between private party and the State/instrumentality and/or agency of the State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. 70.9. The distinction between public law and private law element in the contract with the State is - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 getting blurred. However, it has not been totally obliterated and where the matter falls purely in private field of contract, this Court has maintained the position that writ petition is not maintainable. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinction between the public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision. In fact, each case has to be examined, on its facts whether the contractual relations between the parties bear insignia of public element. Once on the facts of a particular case it is found that nature of the activity or controversy involves public law element, then the matter can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether action of the State and/or instrumentality or agency of the State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into the decision- making process or that the decision is not arbitrary. 70.10. Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness. 70.11. The scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. 71. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles and after considering the arguments of the respective parties, we are of the view that on the facts of the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 present case, it is not a fit case where the High Court should have exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. First, the matter is in the realm of pure contract. It is not a case where any statutory contract is awarded." 14. On perusal of the writ papers, the same would indicate that the rights of the parties in the present writ petition arose on account of the Memorandum of the Agreement dated 11th December, 2023 (Annexure-H) and the Power of Attorney dated 12th December, 2025 (Annexure-K) made by the respondent No.4 in favour of the respondent No.5. That apart, there are two suits and one commercial application pending consideration before the competent Courts, whereby the parties claiming rights over the school in question. Therefore following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, I am of the view that the relationship between the petitioners with respondents 4 and 5 is on account of contractual relationship to manage the affairs of the school. In that view of the matter, as there are disputes referred to above between/amongst the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5, until the rights of the parties are crystallised in the aforementioned litigations, this Court is declined to interfere with relief sought for by the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24730 WP NO.15453 OF 2025 petitioners in the writ petition. What emerged in this proceedings is a serious disputed questions of facts, which are of complex in nature and money claims are arising out of the contractual obligations in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be accepted. 15. Though the learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the respondents 1 and 2 be directed to conduct inspection of the school in question to ascertain as to who is running/functioning the school cannot be appropriate since, the said act would amounts to collection of evidence and this Court, cannot entertain the same under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. In the result, writ petition is rejected. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK