Ravindra Rural Education Society (R) and R.R. Pre-University College later Renamed as Padmashali Thimmappa Memorial Pre-University College vs The State of Karnataka

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In these writ petitions the Petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.10.2008 passed by second Respondent as per Annexure-W.

First Petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 engaged in running educational institutions from the year 1984-85. The first Petitioner''s society after obtaining necessary permission from Education Department commenced Pre-University Courses from the year 1984-85. On 16.11.1995 the college run by the first Petitioner''s society was admitted to grant-in-aid by the Director of Pre-University Board. Subsequently, on 22.02.1996, the Respondents have withheld temporarily the order admitting the Petitioners college for grant-in-aid. Aggrieved by the order of the Government withheld the grant-in-aid. The first Petitioner''s society approached this Court in W.P. No. 30843/1998. This Court vile order dated 20.02.2006 allowed the writ petition, set-aside the order of the Government and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Respondents issued a show-cause notice on 15.09.2006 calling upon the first Petitioner''s society to show-cause as to why the grant-in-aid extended to them shall not be cancelled. Again the Petitioners approached this Court in W.P. No. 15040/2006 questioning the show-cause notice issued by the Respondents. This Court vide order dated 2.11.2006 disposed the writ petition with a liberty to the pensioners to file their objections within the time frame of 10 days and directed the Respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. According, the first Petitioner''s society fifed their objections on 8.11.2006 as per Annexure-V The Respondents after considering the objections filed by the Petitioners have now issued the impugned endorsement on 22.10.2008 at Annexure W rejecting the objections filed by the Petitioners. Hence these writ petitions.

Heard the arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

Sri Nagendra Gowda, learned Counsel for the Petitioners firstly contend that before filing the objections as per Annexure ''L'' dated 8.11.2006 and after filing the objections, the Petitioners requested the Respondents to furnish copies of enquiry report and other documents and the same was not furnished to them. In the absence of such necessary details the Petitioners could not able to defend themselves effectively before the Respondents and the same has resulted in failure of justice. I decline to accept this contention of teamed counsel for the Petitioners. It is not in dispute that in W.P. 30843/1998, the Respondents filed their statement of objections. With the statement of objections, the Respondents have also produced as many as 10 documents as Annexure - R1 to RIO. The copies of these Annexure - R1 to R10 and also the copy of statement of objections was served on the counsel for Petitioners. In these documents Annexure - R1 is the enquiry report. When the copies of these documents are available with the Petitioners then there was no need for them to again make an application seeking copies of the report and other documents.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners secondly contended that the alleged enquiry report is in favour of the Petitioners and the same is not considered by the Respondents. It is seen from the record that in the show-cause notice issued by the Respondents on 15.09.2006 charges are levelled again the first Petitioner''s society which are not related to the enquiry report. On these charges, the Respondents on appreciation of the entire material on record, and by considering the objections filed by the Petitioners passed the impugned order. The non-consideration of the report which was in favour of the Petitioners has no consequence in passing the impugned order.

It is seen from the record that the first Petitioner''s society indulged in various irregularities in the matter of admission of students, appointment of the start, furnishing false information while claiming the grant-in-aid etc. It in seen from the record that the COD enquiry was conducted in respect of the educational institution called Ravindra Education Society. The Petitioner''s name is Ravindra Rural Education Society. The Directors in both the educational societies are found to be the same. Though there two educational societies claim certain benefits under the category of SC/ST management, it was found during the COD enquiry that some of the Directors of the educational institutions are not belonging to SC/ST. Further, it is seen the Directors of the educational institutions are also teaching and no n-teaching staff of the educational institutions. It has also come out in the enquiry that, to an extent of nearly 32-00 lakhs grants are mis-utilized by the first Petitioner''s society and its sister concern. It was also found that minors are appointed as Directors of the society, age barred persons are admitted as students and it was also found that repetition of names of students in the attendance register list to show the maximum strength of students in the class. The Respondents on appreciating the entire material on record have rightly passed the impugned order and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are hereby rejected.