- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:142 WP No. 104006 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.104006 OF 2018 (EDN-GIA) BETWEEN: VIVEKANANDA KANNADA MEDIUM HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VIVEKANANDA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, MOLE VILLAGE, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591303, REP. BY ITS HEAD MASTER, SRI. SIDARAY RAMU MALLUKHAN, S/O. RAMU MALLUKHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOLE VILLAGE, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591303. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL SECRETARY. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER (INCHARGE) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Date: 2026.01.22 15:27:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:142 WP No. 104006 of 2018 DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DHARWAD. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CHIKKODI. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER KAGAWAD, KAGAWAD TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO FORWARD THE FILE WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER SCHEEL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER THE LETTERS DATED 02.08.2017, 27.10.2017 AND 24.02.2018 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE H, H1, AND H2 LETTER BEARING NO.SANKYA:GI3(1):SHA SHI A:SA ANU:VI VA- 04:2017-18/1383, LETTER BEARING NO. SANKYA: GI3(1):SHA SHI A:SA. ANU:VI VA-04:2017-18/2257 AND BEARING SANKYA: GI3(1):SHA SHI A:SA. ANU:VI VA-04:2017-18/3176 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:142 WP No. 104006 of 2018 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a private unaided educational institution running a Kannada Medium Higher Primary School at Mole Village, Athani Taluk, Belagavi District, has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus against the prolonged unexplained inaction of the respondents/ Authorities in forwarding and considering its proposal for grant-in-aid, despite the petitioner having grant-in-aid. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner institution is a registered educational institution and has been running Vivekananda Kannada Medium Higher Primary School since 1992, duly registered and periodically renewed by the competent authorities. The State Government, by proceedings dated 06.10.2007, extended eligibility for grant-in-aid to private schools started from 01.06.1987 to 1992-93, subject to fulfilment of conditions. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4- Block Education Officer conducted physical verification on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:142 WP No. 104006 of 2018 25.07.2011, evaluated infrastructure and facilities, and awarded 71 marks, exceeding the minimum eligibility requirement of 60 marks. 3. Respondent No.3-Deputy Director of Public Instructions by proceedings upto 29.06.2012, recorded that the petitioner school was eligible for grant-in-aid, but failed to forward the proposal further. Several representations were made by the petitioner resulting in three written directions issued by respondent No.2-Commissioner of Public Instructions on 02.08.2017, 27.10.2017 and 24.02.2018 expressly directing respondent No.3 to forward the proposal with all documents. Despite these directions, the 3rd respondent failed to act, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction of the 3rd respondent to forward the proposal is arbitrary and illegal. Under the Government Order dated 06.10.2007, proposals are required to be forwarded within - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:142 WP No. 104006 of 2018 30 days, whereas in the present case, the delay extends beyond 6 years without justification. Once eligibility is determined, and superior authorities have issued clear directions, the 3rd respondent has no discretion to withhold the file and the continued inaction has adversely affected the institution, its teachers and students in rural areas, defeating the very object of the grant-in-aid scheme. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the 3rd respondent would forward the proposal and necessary directions may be issued to that effect. 6. From the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner's school was established in the year 1992 and has been continuously functioning with due registration and renewal by competent authority. The Block Education Officer evaluated that the petitioner's school is eligible for consideration of grant-in-aid, who upon, physical inspection awarded 71 marks. The record further discloses that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:142 WP No. 104006 of 2018 respondent No.3-Deputy Director of Public Instructions has conducted proceedings and recorded a finding that the petitioner's school was eligible in all aspects for consideration of grant-in-aid. However, despite such eligibility having been recorded as early as 29.06.2012 the proposal was not forwarded to the higher authority for fresh consideration. It is also significant to note that respondent No.2-Commissioner of Public Instruction issued repeated written directions to respondent No.3, calling upon him to forward the proposal along with all the relevant documents by communications dated 02.08.2017, 27.10.2017 and 24.02.2018. These directions have not been disputed by the respondents. 7. In spite of the aforesaid directions, respondent No.3 has failed to forward the proposal and no reasoned explanation is forthcoming for such prolonged inaction. The failure to act in accordance with the direction of the superior authority amounts to arbitrariness and dereliction of statutory duty. The authority when entrusted with a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:142 WP No. 104006 of 2018 procedural duty, fails to act. Despite repeated directions, issuance of mandamus is warranted. 8. In the facts of the present case, the relief sought for by the petitioner confined to the direction to forward the proposal. The relief directing mandamus would sub serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by issuing necessary direction to respondent No.3 to forward the proposal. Accordingly this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is disposed of. ii. Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to forward the proposal along with all requisite documents pertaining to the petitioner's school to respondent No.2, if not already forwarded, strictly in terms of communications at Annexures-H, H1 and H2 dated 02.08.2017, 27.10.2017 and 24.02.2018 within a period of 3 weeks from - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:142 WP No. 104006 of 2018 the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. iii. The proposal for grant-in-aid of the petitioner's school shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66