- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6572 WP No. 102168 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 102168 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: SAMUEL MEMORIAL LITTLE ANGEL’S EDUCATION SOCIETY’S SAMUEL MEMORIAL PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, AISHWARYA COLONY, ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL,TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587313 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VICKY S. TEGUR,AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MAHARAJ COLONY, NEAR JUDGE QUARTERS, MUDHOL,TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, 18TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560012. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (PRE – UNIVERSITY), 18TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560012. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6572 WP No. 102168 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (PRE-UNIVERSITY), BAGALKOT DISTRICT, DIST. BAGALKOT 587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN DPUE-EST 30EB (OTH)/5/2024-RAND G E-1410315 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 06.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN E.1410315:DPUE-EST30 EB(OTH)/5/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-J, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by respondent No.2- the Director of Public Instructions, produced as per Annexure-H and the impugned Communication dated 06.03.2025, produced as per Annexure-J. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6572 WP No. 102168 of 2025 2. Heard Sri Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the materials on record. A memo is filed seeking consideration of the impugned prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 addressed their arguments on merits. 3. The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Initially in 2015-16, it had started running the college without grant-in-aid and subsequently it obtained recognition as per the order of respondent No.2 dated 14.07.2015. Thus, the petitioner is running the college with the recognition from the respondents. 4. It is stated that there was inter-se personal disputes between one Sri.C.M.Metri, and his brother Sri.Ramesh M. Metri in respect of withdrawal of the amount from the account of the Principal. In that regard, a private complaint came to be lodged, and thereafter a civil suit in O.S.No.71 of 2024 was also instituted by Ramesh M. Metri, for partition and separate possession. Therefore, there was dispute between the two - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6572 WP No. 102168 of 2025 brothers, and the said Ramesh M. Metri was having ill-will against the Principal of the college. Thus, they were having every reason to hate the petitioner. 5. It is stated that Ramesh M. Metri is a stranger to the petitioner-institution who submitted a complaint to respondent No.2. Based on such complaint, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 21.10.2024, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the permission granted to it should not be re-called. The petitioner has submitted its reply. But however, respondent No.2 has not served the copy of the so called complaint made by Ramesh M. Metri while issuing the show cause notice. But, while passing the impugned order, produced as per Annexure- H, there was reference to such complaint to withdraw the permission to run the college. Similarly Annexure-J was issued by the Director of School Education Department (Pre- University) recommending for withdrawal of the permission to run the college 6. Annexure F is the notice dated 21.10.2024 issued by respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner, to show cause as to why the permission accorded for running the educational - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6572 WP No. 102168 of 2025 institution should not be withdrawn. In the notice, it is stated that the permission was given to run the college subject to certain conditions. One such condition is that, for running Pre- University College, the Management shall provide all basic amenities, and secondly, the college was not permitted to shift its place of functioning to any other place, without the permission from the appropriate authority. It is also stated that it is the duty of the petitioner to provide required playground area for the students. It is stated that, all these conditions were violated by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner was called upon to show cause as against the withdrawal of the permission. 7. Annexure G is the reply submitted by the petitioner wherein, it is categorically stated that there is a well equipped new building where few classes were conducted apart from conducting special and reading classes. Since the building in question in respect of which the permission was granted is about 4 or 5 kilometers away from the Aishwarya Colony, Anand Nagar Bus stop, and since the new building is convenient to the students to attend the classes, few classes are being run with the permission of the parents. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6572 WP No. 102168 of 2025 8. If Annexure J is taken into consideration irrespective of the complaint by any person including Ramesh M. Metri, the reply given by the petitioner itself suggests that there is truth in the information collected by respondent No.2 that the petitioner is running at-least few classes in a separate building apart from running special and reading classes, without obtaining prior permission from the authority. Admittedly, it amounts to violation of the condition imposed for according permission to run the educational institution. When the petitioner has constructed a new building to run the classes, nothing prevented the petitioner from seeking permission from the authority concerned, in accordance with law. 9. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to violate the conditions imposed while granting permission solely on the ground that the future of the students are at stake. The Management which is running the educational institution by accepting fees prescribed by it should take care of its students and should have concern about their future. The future of the students cannot be made as a shield to protect running of the classes elsewhere illegally, and to seek protection from initiating any - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6572 WP No. 102168 of 2025 action even though admittedly there is violation of the conditions imposed while according permission. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, there is no merit in the petition and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Creative Education Trust (R) Creative Higher Primary School, Mysuru Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors1. In support of his contention that, since the reply given by the petitioner was not considered by respondent No.2, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. On facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the matter that respondent No.3, in the said case had not considered the reasons assigned by the petitioner in the reply notice, solely on the ground that said reply was issued on behalf of the petitioner through its advocate. Under such circumstances, the order came to be passed. 11. In the present case, the petitioner itself has submitted the reply to the show cause notice as per Annexure G, making categorical admission regarding running of few 1 W.P.No.13498 of 2024 D.D. 21.5.2024 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6572 WP No. 102168 of 2025 classes at-least in the well-equipped building built for the purpose. When the petitioner, in un-equivocal terms admits violation of the conditions imposed while granting permission, by stating that few classes were being conducted in a different building which is well-equipped for the purpose, without there being any permission to conduct such classes, it amounts to clear violation of the conditions. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that the reply, produced as per Annexure G was not taken into consideration by respondent No.2. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has taken into consideration the reply Annexure G and it is the basis for passing the impugned order. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5