- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT APPEAL No.100249 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: SAMUEL MEMORIAL LITTEL 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, 8TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560012. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (PRE-UNIVERSITY), 18TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560012. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (PRE UNIVERSITY), BAGALKOT DISTRICT, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R3) MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.102168/2025 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The above intra-Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.4.2025 passed in WP No.102168/2025, whereby the appellant’s/petitioner’s writ petition questioning the order bearing No. DPUE-EST 30EB (OTH)/5/2024-RND G E-1410315 dated 6.3.2025 withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner to run Pre-University College is rejected. 2. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge for the sake of convenience. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- Society was granted recognition to run Samuel Memorial Pre- University College, Aishwarya Colony, Anand Nagar, Mudhol, permanently without grant-in-aid under Government Order dated 12.06.2015 vide Annexure-A. The petitioner was issued with show-cause notice dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure-F) calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the recognition granted to the petitioner to run Pre-University College shall not be withdrawn for violation of conditions of recognition, i.e. change in the location of educational institution without prior permission. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 2.12.2024 (Annexure-G) stating that for unavoidable circumstances, certain classes are taken at Padmavathi Colony, where the petitioner is having well equipped building, where special classes are taken. Further, in the said reply, the petitioner also stated that the complaint filed by one Sri. Ramesh M Metri is false and further stated that the said complainant is brother of Principal, who filed complaint only to settle his personal score. Thereafter, impugned order dated 6.3.2025 (Annexure-H) is passed withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner to run Pre-University College in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 exercise of power under Section 39 of the Karnataka Education Act, 19831. Questioning the same, the petitioner was before the learned Single Judge in the above writ petition. The learned Single Judge under impugned order dated 17.4.2025 rejected the writ petition holding that the petitioner in unequivocal terms admits violation of the conditions imposed while granting permission, with further observation that running classes in different building would amount to violation of conditions imposed for according permission to run the educational institution. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is in this intra-Court appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Girish A Yadwad for the appellant through V.C. and leaned Addl. Government Advocate Sri. M.M. Khannur for respondents No.1 to 3 and perused the entire writ appeal papers. 5. Learned counsel Sri. Girish A Yadwad for the appellant would submit that there is no violation of conditions of recognition granted under Government Order dated 12.6.2015 (Annexure-A). It is submitted that one of the 1 ‘For short, ‘the Act of 1983’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 conditions of recognition is that location of educational institution shall not be changed without obtaining prior permission. Further, learned counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner in unequivocal terms admitted violation of conditions imposed while granting permission. Learned counsel would further submit that the reply to the show-cause notice would state that the petitioner is running few special classes in a separate building and he has not admitted about shifting of entire college to another place. It is the case of the petitioner that since all facilities are available in new building, only special classes after lunch hours are taken in separate building, which would not amount to shifting of entire college. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the same would also not amount to admitting the violation of conditions imposed while granting permission. Further, learned counsel Sri. Girish A Yadwad would invite attention of this Court to an affidavit dated 28.4.2025 of the petitioner, whereunder the petitioner has undertaken that the college will not conduct any classes at any other place and it will conduct all classes at the original premises in Aishwarya Colony, Mudhol. In the light of above - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 affidavit and the facts explained therein, learned counsel prays for allowing the writ appeal by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and also withdrawal of recognition at Annexure-H dated 6.3.2025. 6. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate Sri. M.M. Khannur for respondents No.1 to 3 would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Further learned AGA would submit that one of the conditions of recognition is, not to change the location of educational institution without obtaining prior permission. As the petitioner has violated the said condition of recognition by conducting classes in different location or different building, the authorities are justified in withdrawing the recognition under impugned order. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, the only point that would arise for consideration is as to, whether the impugned order of learned Single Judge requires interference at the hands of this Court? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 8. Answer to the above point would be in the “affirmative” for the following reasons: 9. Admittedly, the petitioner-Society was granted recognition to run Pre-University College at Aishwarya Colony, Anand Nagar, Mudhol, permanently without grant-in-aid under Government Order dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure-A). One of the conditions of granting recognition is that, for any reason, there is no scope for change of location. Show-cause notice dated 21.10.2024 was issued to the petitioner alleging violation of conditions of recognition, as the petitioner is not running college at the address stated in the order of recognition and there is no play ground to the petitioner institution. On the said allegation, the petitioner was called upon to submit a reply within thirty days. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 2.12.2024 (Annexure-G), wherein paragraph-2 reads as under: “£ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå PÀbÉÃj ªÀÄÆ® ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ DzÀgÉ PÉ®ªÀÅ C¤ªÁAiÀÄð PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ ¸À® PÉêÀ® vÀgÀUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÉà £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀzÁäªÀw PÁ®¤ vÀ¯Áp D¸ÀàvÉæ ºÀwÛgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀĺÁ«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÁæZÁAiÀÄðgÀ MAzÀÄ ºÉƸÀ ¸ÀĸÀfÓvÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ°è vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝÃªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «±ÉõÀ vÀgÀUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ jrAUï vÀgÀUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀݪÀ KPÉAzÀgÉ, «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁå£À Hl ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ®Ä L±ÀéAiÀÄð PÁ¯ÉÆä D£ÀAzï £ÀUÀgÀ §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝt¢AzÀ 4 jAzÀ 5 QÃ.«Ä zÀÆgÀ«zÉ. DzÀgÉ FUÀ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛÃgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄzÀå¨sÁUÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæ«ÄÃt «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ ªÀĺÁ«zÁå®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ §gÀ®Ä C£ÀÄPÀÆ®PÀgÀªÁVzÉ. F ¸ÀܼÀ vÀÄA¨Á ¥Àæ±ÁAvÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J®è ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ ¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÉƼÀUÉÆAqÀ ºÉƸÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F vÀgÀUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzsÁå£À 2 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀAeÉ 6 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ¥Á®PÀgÀ M¦àUÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÀgÀUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. EzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä «zÁåyðUÀ¼À «zsÁå¨sÁå¸ÀzÀ°è UÀt¤ÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è zsÀ£ÁvÀäPÀ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” 10. The above explanation would indicate that for unavoidable reasons, certain classes are conducted at Padmvathy Colony, where the petitioner is having well- equipped building. Further it states that special classes and reading classes are taken after lunch hours. The above explanation would not amount to unequivocal admission as observed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner has not admitted in its reply, the allegation of change of place of educational institution. If the petitioner has admitted the allegation that the entire educational institution is shifted to some other place, then it could be said as unequivocal admission. Admission always shall be categorical. If there is variance or partial admission, it cannot be considered as unequivocal or categorical admission. Moreover, there is no allegation of not conducting classes or conducting classes at a building without infrastructure or facilities. 11. Section 39 of the Act of 1983 empowers the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 withdraw the recognition of the institution, if it finds that there is failure to fulfill all or any of the conditions or fails to comply the orders of the competent authority in regard to accommodation, equipments, syllabi, textbooks, appointment, punishment and dismissal of teachers. 12. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the recognition is withdrawn only on the ground that there is change of place or college is shifted without prior permission. Withdrawal of recognition is not on the ground that the petitioner is not having play ground though show- cause notice indicates the same. If the withdrawal of the recognition is only on the ground of shifting of college or change of place without permission, the same would not stand to reason for the above explained circumstances. 13. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 28.4.2025, wherein paragraph-3 of the affidavit reads as follows: 3. I hereby undertake in the capacity of the President of the appellant institution that the college will not conduct any classes at any other place and it will conduct all classes at the original - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 premises in Aishwarya Colony, Mudhol. In case of any necessity either to conduct classes at any other place or to shift the college, the appellant will seek necessary permission from the respondent authorities to that effect. 14. In the above affidavit, the petitioner/institution has categorically stated that the college will not conduct any classes at any other place and it will conduct all classes at the original premises in Aishwarya Colony, Mudhol. In case of any necessity to conduct classes at any other place or to shift the college, it has undertaken to seek necessary permission from the competent authority. 15. For the reasons recorded above, writ appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER a) The above writ appeal is allowed; b) The impugned order of learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2025 passed in WP No.102168/2025 is set-aside. Consequently, the impugned order of withdrawal of recognition passed by the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7140-DB WA No. 100249 of 2025 respondent/authorities bearing No. DPUE- EST 30EB (OTH)/5/2024-RAND G E- 1410315 Vide Annexure-H as well as impugned communication dated 6.3.2025 vide Annexure-J are quashed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE JTR CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2