- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 52464 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DR. K. JANARDHANAM S/O K KUPPAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, WORKING AS: THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) BENGALURU NORTH UNIVERSITY, RESIDING AT NO.80, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, WIDIA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, JNANABHARATHI BENGALURU-560 056 3. THE KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 BENGALURU - 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K.PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3; SRI. R. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (ABSENT) CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 11.03.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO.ED/346/UBV/2018 DATED 13.02.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-N ONLY INSOFAR AS IT RELATES PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “i) To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Government Order bearing No.ED/346/UBV/2018 dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-N only insofar as it relates petitioner. ii) To quash the impugned audit report bearing No.AaNi / Bem Pra Ka / C- 4/Bem.Vi.Vi.Le.Pa.Va/2018-19/333 dated 09.08.2018 submitted by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-H insofar as it relates to the petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 iii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent Bengaluru University to post the petitioner to work as teaching staff in the newly constituted Bengaluru Central University, in terms of recommendation made as per Annexure- M.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the reliefs (i) and (iii) have now become infructuous as the petitioner has retired from service. He contends that the writ petition is restricted to relief No.(ii). 3. The petitioner contends that he served as a Director, Canara Bank School of Management Studies ('CBSMS' for short) from 2006 to 2013 and 2015 to 2019. When he was the Director of CBSMS from 2015 to 2019, the Vice-Chancellor addressed a letter dated 02.03.2016 granting approval for introduction of System Application Programme ('SAP' for short) to impart SAP premium courses for the students of Bangalore University ('University' for short) and affiliated / constituent Colleges at a subsidized fee. This was with a view to enhance the employability of the students of Bangalore University. Consequently, the University entered into an understanding with M/s.Electro-Mech Enterprise, an authorized partner of SAP - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 to provide SAP premium courses to the students of all the Colleges affiliated to Bengaluru University. Thereafter, the respondent No.2-University issued a Circular dated 09.03.2016 to all affiliated Colleges of the University to adopt / offer the SAP Programme for the students. Contemporaneously, the University issued another Circular dated 09.03.2016 to all affiliated colleges of the University offering SAP Education Programme at subsidized fee for the students and directed the Directors / Management to bring the above scheme to the notice of all students of Pre-final and final year of MBA/MCA/ME courses. 4. The petitioner contends that as per the said Circulars issued by the University, M/s.Electro-Mech Enterprise, was the service provider and M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe (India) Pvt. Ltd. (‘M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe’ for short) is the authorized partner of SAP, Germany. 5. Later, the University passed a resolution in its 134th meeting of the Syndicate held on 17.05.2017 and constituted an Enquiry Committee to enquire into the allegations made about the SAP conducted by the CBSMS, as it was alleged that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 a sum of Rs.6,900/- was collected from each of the students of Master of Business Administration (MBA) course of private colleges without the approval of the University. The petitioner contends that after the enquiry was completed, a report was submitted by the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee on 12.07.2018 to the Registrar of respondent No.2 - University in terms of which it was stated that the fee collected from students who opted SAP was directly remitted to the account of SAP's authorized partner, namely, M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe and that neither the University nor the CBSMS and the petitioner were involved in the collection of fee. That there were no payments made to either the account of the CBSMS or to the account of the petitioner. It was also reported that there was no procedural lapse. 6. Despite the above, the issue was referred to the Additional Director of the Karnataka State Audit and Accounts Department. On 30.03.2017, the Finance Committee of the respondent No.2 put up a note stating that it was just and necessary to take appropriate action to refer the matter to the respondent No.3, namely, Karnataka State Audit and Accounts Department represented by its Additional Director. Respondent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 No.2 then addressed a letter dated 03.06.2017 to the respondent No.3 requesting him to conduct an audit of the books of account of CBSMS. Respondent No.3 then addressed a communication dated 12.06.2018 to the CBSMS requesting it to furnish books of accounts for the years 2016-17 and 2017- 18. 7. The petitioner purportedly addressed a letter dated 27.06.2018 to the respondent No.3 stating that the SAP programme/s offered to the students was/were approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University and the students who opted for the SAP course had paid the fees directly to the authorized partner, namely, M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe and neither the University nor the CBSMS was involved in collection of fees. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3, had submitted its report on 09.08.2018 to the CBSMS stating therein that SAP had stated that a sum of Rs.6,000/- was collected from each student and that 3800 students had enrolled in the programme. It was also stated therein that the amount was remitted to the account of SAP's authorized partner, namely, M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe, by way of demand draft. However, it was reported that while collecting - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 the said amount and remitting it to the account of the authorized partner of SAP, the procedure prescribed under law was not followed. Therefore, it was recommended that the entire amount deposited by way of demand draft to the account of the authorized partner of SAP amounting to Rs.2,28,00,000/- (wrongly stated as 2.8 crores in para No.9 of the petition) has to be recovered from the petitioner and Smt. Seethamma, the earlier Registrar. The petitioner contends that the only lapse pointed out by the respondent No.3 is that the amount collected from the students was not routed through the University. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 46 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the Act, 2000’), the amount collected from the students for the SAP course cannot be treated as the fund of the University as this was a course offered by an outside Agency and not by a constituent college of the University or the University. Therefore, he contended that the amount collected from students did not partake the character of “University fund” and hence, the amount collected in the name of M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe and credited into their account - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 by the petitioner cannot be treated as usurpation of the fund belonging to the University. He, therefore, contends that the audit report submitted by the respondent No.3 dated 09.08.2018 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.2,28,00,000/- from the petitioner is liable to be interfered with. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions. 10. The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that relief Nos.(i) and (iii) have become infructuous, the Government order dated 13.02.2019 cannot be disturbed. He contended that as regards the audit report submitted by respondent No.3, the same was based on the payments made directly to M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe without bringing into the account of the University fund as required under Section 46 of the Act, 2000. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 12. The audit report submitted by the respondent No.3 indicting the petitioner of directly remitting a sum of Rs.2,28,00,000/- to M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe and ordering to recover the said amount from the petitioner, is based on the premise that the money collected from the students in the name of M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe had to be routed through the University as it was a fund belonging to the University under Section 46 of the Act, 2000. Section 46 of the Act, 2000 reads as follows: "46. University Funds.- (1) The amounts received from any of the following sources shall form part of the University Fund,- (a) any contribution or grant made by the University Grants Commission or the Central Government; (b) any contribution or grant made by the State Government; (c) any bequests, donations, endowments or other grants made by private individuals or institutions; (d) the income received by the University from fees and charges; (e) any contribution or bequests from the Industries, traders or entrepreneurs; (f) any contribution or endowments from foreign Governments or any foreign - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 Institutions or companies subject to any law for the time being in force; (g) the amounts received from any other source. (2) The said fund shall be kept in a Scheduled Bank as defined in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, or in a corresponding new bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or may be invested in securities authorised by the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, as may be decided by the Syndicate. (3) The said Fund may be employed for any of the purposes of the University in the manner prescribed by the Statutes." It is not in dispute that the SAP course offered was by a private entity and not by the University or any affiliated College / constituent College of the University. The agreement between the University and M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe specifically provided that the Course would be offered over a period of four weeks to those students who had completed second semester and before the commencement of the third semester of MBA, for which 50 marks was prescribed. It is a matter of common knowledge that SAP is a special software designed by a private entity and therefore, neither the University nor the petitioner - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10291 WP No. 52464 of 2019 are entitled to offer this course. Any amount collected from the students is, therefore, to be credited into the account of M/s.Connaissance Asset Shoppe and not to the account of the University and the amount so collected, at any rate, cannot be treated as the ‘University fund’ under Section 46 of the Act, 2000. Under the circumstances, the audit report submitted by respondent No.3 dated 09.08.2013 recommending to recover Rs.2,28,00,000/- from the petitioner is improper and warrants interference. Consequently, this Writ Petition is allowed and the observations made by the respondent No.3 in its report dated 09.08.2018 is quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31