Chetana Education Trust (R) vs State of Karnataka and Others

H.G. Ramesh, J.—The prayers made in this writ petition read as follows:

"a) Declare Rule 4(2)(a) of the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration & Grant-in-Aid etc.) Rules, 2006 as unconstitutional and ultra vires of the Constitution of India and the Karnataka Education Act, 1983: Annexure-G;

b) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ or Order or Direction in the similar nature quashing Order dated 03.07.2015 vide Annexure-H bearing No. PaPuShi/Sibbandi-3/GD/Re.Am-28093/2012- 9117/2012/2012-13 Bangalore dated 30.6.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent authority;

c) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or Direction in the similar nature directing the respondent authorities to accord and renew the recognition granted in favour of the Pre- University Colleges run by the Petitioner Trust;

d) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon''ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.

As validity of Rule 4(2)(a) of the Karnataka Pre- University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration and Grant-in-aid etc.) Rules, 2006 (''the Rules''), is challenged, it is necessary to extract the said Rule:

"4. Procedure for establishing a new Private Pre- University college.--(1).............

(2) Upon receipt of the letter of intent, the managing committee intending to establish a Pre-University college shall.--

(a) Within one year from the date of letter of intent, acquire a minimum of 25.000 Sq. ft. of land on which it intends to construct the college building including the principal''s chambers class rooms, library, etc

(b).............................................."

(Underlining supplied)

In my opinion, Rule 4(2)(a) extracted above is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. The requirement of a minimum of 25,000 sq.ft. of land to establish a Pre-University college is very reasonable. It does not offend any constitutional limitations or any provision of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (''the Act'') to strike it down.

Rule 4(2)(a) of the Rules mandates acquisition of a minimum of 25,000 sq.ft. land to establish a Pre-University College. Rule 4(3) of the Rules will not reduce this minimum requirement of 25,000 sq.ft. of land, if the sections (class rooms) are less than six. The contention to the contrary urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of substance.

Coming to the impugned order dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure-H), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it was not preceded by one month''s notice as contemplated under Sec. 39(2) of the Act. He submitted that the show cause notice is dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure-C), wherein only a week''s time was granted to the petitioner to reply. Sec. 39(2) of the Act reads as follows:

"39. Withdrawal of recognition. (1).......................................

(2) Where the State Government is of the opinion that the recognition granted to any local authority institution or private educational institution should, in the public interest be withdrawn, they may after giving to the local authority or as the case may be the Governing Council of the institution one month''s notice to make any representation, withdraw by notification the recognition granted to the said institution."

(Underlining supplied)

In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Bharati (Pvt.) Edtn. Society, Anekal, B''lore v. State [2003 (7) KLJ 313 : (2004 AIR - Kant HCR 1547 (Kar) and specifically referred to para 5 thereof.

In my opinion, having regard to the facts of this case, it cannot be said that noncompliance of S. 39(2), if at all, has in any way prejudiced the case of the petitioner. The show cause notice is dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure-C). The petitioner replied twice to the said show cause notice. The replies are dated 10.03.2015 and 24.03.2015 at Annexures-D & E. In the reply dated 24.03.2015 filed by the petitioner at Annexure-E, it is stated that additional time of 15 days was sought on 25.02.2015 and, it was granted by the Director, department of Pre-University Education. The second reply given by the petitioner is dated 24.03.2015. The show cause notice is dated 23.02.2015. This shows that the petitioner got one month''s time to reply to the show cause notice. Further, as could be seen from the order dtd. 28.01.2015 (Annexure-J) passed by a Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner was respondent No. 5 therein and as early as in January 2015, it was aware of the impending enquiry to examine compliance of Rule 4 of the Rules. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any of the petitioner''s 13 Colleges referred to in the impugned order have land of 25,000 sq.ft. As could be seen from the impugned order, the extent of land stated to be with the respective 13 Colleges range from 2,700 sq.ft. to 8,000 sq.ft. which is far below the prescribed minimum of 25,000 sq.ft. of land. In my opinion, it is not in public interest to permit Pre-University colleges to run on small patch of lands which can''t accommodate the required infrastructure. This will also result in violation of the Rule referred to above which is made in public interest. At any rate, this is not a fit case to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.