At, High Court of Karnataka
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH
For the Petitioner: D.L. Jagadeesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: R4, R Omkumar, AGA, M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate.
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 23.7.2011 - annexure K and also the order dated 25.4.2011 - annexure G by the 2nd and 4th respondents respectively.)
Petitioner Society has sought for quashing the order dated 25.4.2011 - annexure G by the 4th respondent and for a mandamus directing the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the applications filed at annexure D and D1 to accord sanction to start primary and high school as per the representations and also to quash the communication dated 24.8.2011 and 9.9.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent at annexures P and R respectively.
It is stated, petitioner is an education society with an object to provide education to regular students as well as to mentally disabled children. Property in Sy.No.82/2 measuring 1 acre situate at Kumarabeedu Village of Yelawala Hobli, Mysore was converted from agriculture to non- agriculture purpose by the order of the Deputy Commissioner wherein they are running the school. There is a dispute with regard to the property in question pending before the Civil Court. Property in Sy.No.60/13 measuring 3acres situate at Kergally, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore is also the subject matter in dispute. However, alleging there is a civil suit pending, the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to commence the classes and to accord recognition has been rejected. As such, this petition. Heard the counsel representing the parties. According to the petitioner, they are making all efforts to secure the land. Though a dispute is pending, it has nothing to do with the recognition and also, they are finding a better place to run the school. Thus, he prays for allowing the petition.
Counsel for the respondent submitted, for the present the matter may be considered however, it would be subject to the result of the appeal pending before this Court against the order of the civil court. Having heard the counsel representing the parties, I am of the view the representations submitted by the petitioner with regard to commencement of classes and to accord recognition/approval may have to be considered by the respondent authority. The suit pending before the civil court or before this Court would not come in the way of according permission.
Accordingly, petition is all
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
owed as prayed for. However, if the 5 th respondent is aggrieved later, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. Representation of the petitioner be considered within one month from the date of receipt of this order, to accord permission/recognition.