- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 52083 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VYASA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST BEING A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST UNDER INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1882 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SURVEY NO.101/2, DODDABOMMASANDRA, BEL NORTH GATE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560097 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON MR. V. SRINIVASA RAJU 2. VYASA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL SURVEY NO.101/2, DODDABOMMASANDRA BEL NORTH GATE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560097 REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, MR. PRASAN VENKATESH RAO …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.C.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MANASA B. RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (SOUTH) PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT NO.21, DISPENSARY ROAD, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 OPPOSITE KIMS HOSPITAL KALASIPALAYAM, BANGALORE-560002 3. B.E.O (SOUTH-3) PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT NO.3, 9TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560029 4. MANISH DESAI S/O. DR. S.S.DESAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.35, KRISHINAGAR, 7TH CROSS, UAS LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SMT. GEETHA M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR A DIRECTION TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 COMMISSION IN KSCPCR/993/07-2018 AGAINST PETITIONERS IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS ULTRA VIRES THE COMMISSIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS ACT, 2005 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a declaration that the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 in KSC - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 PCR/993/07-2018 is without jurisdiction and is ultra-vires the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2005'). They have also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 and the order bearing No.KSCPCR/993/07-2018 dated 04.10.2018 passed by the respondent No.1. 2. (i) The petitioner No.1 is a public charitable trust constituted in terms of a deed of trust dated 19.11.2017. The petitioner No.2 is a school founded and administered by the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 claimed that it offers admission to the students from Nursery to Class XII and that it complies with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTE Act' for short). (ii) The petitioners contend that on 06.06.2018, a group of parents met the principal of petitioner No.2 and raised various grievances, such as, formation of the Parent Teacher Association and method of payment of fees, penalty for late payment of fees, additional fees, fee hike etc., The principal of petitioner No.2 escalated the grievances of the parents to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 board of management which undertook to redress the grievances. Accordingly, the principal of petitioner No.2 addressed an email dated 12.06.2018 informing the parents about the action taken on each of the grievances and provided clarification wherever necessary. (iii) The petitioners contend that one of the parents who had raised grievances named Mr.Padam Kumar Jain, entered the office of the principal without prior appointment on 12.07.2018 and spoke to the principal in an intimidating manner. The petitioner No.2 therefore filed a complaint with the jurisdictional police on 13.07.2018. The petitioner No.2 also lodged a complaint dated 26.07.2018 with the Karnataka State Commission for Women against the harassment caused by Mr.Padam Kumar Jain to a lady receptionist. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued a questionnaire with petitioner No.2 based on complaints lodged by certain parents. The petitioner No.2 submitted a detailed response to the said questionnaire. The petitioners claimed that a complaint was lodged with the respondent No.1 on 08.07.2018 on various matters and that the respondent No.1 had initiated proceedings in case No.KSCPCR/993/07-2018. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 (iv) The petitioners contend that an identical complaint was lodged by the parents of the petitioner No.2-school before the District Regulatory Authority which issued a notice to the petitioners on 01.10.2018 and held various hearings and issued various directions to the petitioner No.2. The petitioners contend that though they brought the proceedings pending before the District Regulatory Authority to the notice of the respondent No.1, it continued to issue directions to the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.1 issued summons to the petitioners dated 09.07.2018 to attend a hearing to be held on 11.07.2018. The officers of the petitioner No.2 who were present at the hearing, sought time to go through the complaint and submit a written response. However, the respondent No.1 refused to provide any time and insisted the petitioners to discuss about their stance on the grievances raised by the parents. The petitioner No.2 purportedly discussed the issues at the hearing. Later, on 16.07.2018, the petitioner No.2 received a letter from the respondent No.1 which was apparently an interim order passed by the respondent No.1 requiring the petitioner No.2 to comply with certain directions namely: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 i. Refund fees collected from parents whose children have not collected books and uniform forthwith; ii. Give school dairy to every students without charging and to return the charges collected for the same; iii. Install complaint and suggestion boxes; vi. Install CCTV camera and ensure that they are in working conditions; v. Comply safety measures in School buses;. vi Form parents teachers association and hold meeting on or before 25.07.2018. The respondent No.1 directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to investigate and submit a report on or before 18.07.2018 regarding the grievances of the parents. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 had in the mean while, submitted two reports on 18.07.2018 namely, the report dated 09.07.2018 and 17.07.2018, after inspecting the school on 09.07.2018 and 16.07.2018 respectively. (v) Later the petitioner No.2 submitted a reply on 13.08.2018 answering all the grievances mentioned in the complaint. A further response was submitted on 29.09.2018 mentioning the steps taken by petitioner No.2. (vi) The petitioners claimed that the respondent No.1 had telephonically informed them on 03.10.2018 to be present - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 for a hearing on the same day. The petitioners attended the meeting where they were asked to undertake further steps based on the grievances mentioned in the complaint. This was followed by a communication dated 15.10.2018 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 to ensure compliance of the directions dated 03.10.2018 to the petitioner No.2. The respondent No.3 then addressed a communication dated 20.10.2018 directing the petitioner No.2 to form a parent teachers association. (vii) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereafter visited the school on 02.11.2018 to enquire regarding the status of compliance of the directions dated 03.10.2018 and formation of parents teachers association. The petitioners claimed that the composition of parents teachers association as suggested by respondent Nos.2 and 3 was not in accordance with the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. It also claimed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had no power to issue any directions to petitioner No.2. The petitioners claimed that the respondent No.1 then passed an order dated 04.10.2018 recommending the petitioner No.2 to implement certain directions. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 (viii) The petitioners are therefore, before this Court challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 vis-à-vis the petitioner No.2 and to quash the order dated 16.07.2018 and the order dated 04.10.2018. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the question whether the respondent No.1 has any jurisdiction to issue recommendation to petitioner No.2 is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.38724/2017 and W.P.No.25201/2019 involving the petitioners herein. He contends that under Section 15 of the Act, 2005, the respondent No.1 may recommend to the Government or authority, for initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such action as it deems fit. He contends that the respondent No.1 cannot directly issue directions. Therefore, he contends that the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set at naught. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the respondent No.1 is constituted for the purpose of looking into the issues relating to child - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 rights. He contends that the recommendations issued by respondent No.1 is in the light of the powers conferred on it under Section 13 of the Act, 2005 and therefore, the petitioners cannot challenge the authority of the respondent No.1 and the validity of the orders issued by it. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Smt. Geetha M, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Rajeswara P.N., learned counsel for respondent No.4. 6. The respondent No.1 is constituted under Section 3 of the Act, 2005. Section 13 of the Act, 2005 determines the functions and powers of the commission. One amongst such powers is to enquire into violation of child rights and recommend initiation of proceedings in such cases. It is also empowered to enquire into complaints and take suo moto notice of the matters relating to deprivation and violation of child rights, non implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children and non compliance of policy decisions guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 hardship and to ensure welfare of children or to take up issues with appropriate authorities. 7. Section 15 of the Act, 2005 deals with the steps to be taken after completion of an enquiry under Section 13 of the Act, 2005. Section 15 of the Act, 2005 enables the respondent No.1 to recommend to the concerned Government or authority to initiate proceedings for prosecution of such other action as it feels fit and necessary. 8. A plain reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the respondent No.1 is a recommendatory body to recommend action to protect the rights of the child. Such recommendation has to be made to the concerned Government. However, in the instant case, the respondent No.1 has itself recommended to the respondent No.1 to comply with certain directions issued by it. Therefore the act of respondent No.1 is outside the scope of the powers and functions granted to it under the Act, 2005. A Coordinate bench of this Court in similar circumstances in W.P.No.38724/2017 has held that the respondent No.1 has no adjudicatory power - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 and it has only power to recommend to the concerned Government to take action. 9. In that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 and the consequent orders, passed by the respondent No.1 is liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the respondent No.1 has no authority over the petitioner No.2 to recommend action under the provisions of the Act, 2005. Consequently, the impugned orders bearing No.KSCPCR/993/07-2018 dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure - 'N') and bearing No.KSCPCR/993/07-2018 dated 04.10.2018 (Annexure - 'Y') both passed by the respondent No.1 are quashed. The respondent No.1 has no authority under Section 15 of the Act, 2005 to recommend action to the petitioners. However, the right of the respondent No.1 to recommend action to the State Government or to any other Authority is kept open. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29516 WP No. 52083 of 2018 11. In view of disposal of writ petition, the pending application - I.A.No.1/2019 for direction does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53