M/S.G.K.NAIDU TRUST v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B M SHYAM PRASAD
- Neutral citation
- 2025:KHC:20367
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed, and the fourth
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Mr. S. Subramanya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the fourth respondent has issued notices referring cancellation of registration under Section 34 of the Education Act and also withdrawal of recognition under Section 39 thereof, the fourth respondent has cancelled recognition…
Judgment
Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20367 WP No. 16639 of 2025 HC-KAR
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, K.R. CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT K G ROAD BANGALORE-560009.
THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, NORTH DIVISION-4, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. (BY SMT.B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU- 3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/32/2024-25 AT ANNX-U1, ORDER DATED 21.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU-3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/34/2024-25 AT ANNX-U2, ORDER DATED 21.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU-3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/35/2024-25 AT ANNX-U3, ORDER DATED 28.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU-3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/36/2024-25 AT ANNX-U4, ORDER DATED 28.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU-3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/40/2024-25 AT ANNX-U5, ORDER DATED 30.05.2025 BEARING NO. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20367 WP No. 16639 of 2025 HC-KAR ANU-3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/33/2024-25 AT ANNX-U6, ORDER DATED 30.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU-3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/39/2024-25 AT ANNX-U7, ORDER DATED 30.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU-3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/38/2024-25 AT ANNX-U8, ORDER DATED 28.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU-3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/31/2024-25 AT ANNX-U9, ORDER DATED 30.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU-3/PRASHIA/KHA.TA.DOORU/MAA.RA/37/2024-25 AT ANNX-U10, ORDER DATED 21.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU-6(A)/PROUSHAMU/37/2024-25, 81A AT ANNX-U11, ORDER DATED 21.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU- 6(A)/PROUSHAMU/2024-25, 81 AT ANNX-U12 AND ORDER DATED 21.05.2025 BEARING NO. ANU- 6(A)/PROUSHAMU/37/2024-25, 81B AT ANNX-U13 RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE R-4 AGAINST THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is a Trust constituted under the Deed of Trust dated 16.09.2004 [Annexure-A]. The petitioner asserts that it runs over 15 institutions, and the petitioner is aggrieved by the fourth - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20367 WP No. 16639 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent's orders [as per Annexure-U series] which are dated 21.05.2025/28.05.2025/30.05.2025. The fourth respondent by these similar orders, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 [for short, 'the Education Act'], has cancelled the registration of the petitioner's 13 institutions alleging that the petitioner has moved its institutions without taking prior approval.
Mr. S. Subramanya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the fourth respondent has issued notices referring cancellation of registration under Section 34 of the Education Act and also withdrawal of recognition under Section 39 thereof, the fourth respondent has cancelled recognition acting in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Education Act. The learned counsel contends that, as is observed by this Court in W.P.No.15029/2024 [EDN-RES]1, a 1 This petition stands disposed of by order dated 01.07.2024 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20367 WP No. 16639 of 2025 HC-KAR decision canceling the recognition for Pre-primary and Primary School [other than Urdu and other minority language schools] under Section 34 of the Education Act must be by the Director of Public Instruction [Primary Education] and not by the Deputy Director [Administration] [like the fourth respondent] who will have the power only under Section 39 of the Education Act.
3. Ms. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, is heard in the light of this canvass and on perusal of Court's
01.07.2024 W.P.No.15029/2024. This Court must observe that the fourth respondent, if action is for cancellation of the recognition to the petitioner's 13 institutions, could not have assumed jurisdiction vested in the Director of Public Instructions [Primary Education] and if the action is for withdrawal of recognition as contemplated under Section 39 of the Education Act, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20367 WP No. 16639 of 2025 HC-KAR the fourth respondent may conclude the proceedings but in due compliance with requisite procedure.
Operative part
4. In the light of these circumstances. this Court is of the considered view that there must be interference on this limited ground restoring the proceedings for due decision either by the Director of Public Instruction [Primary Education] or by the Deputy Director of Public Instruction as the case may be depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. It will be needless to observe that all contentions are left open for due consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed, and the fourth respondent's orders [as per Annexure-U series]
21.05.2025/28.05.2025/30.05.2025 quashed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20367 WP No. 16639 of 2025 HC-KAR [B] The respondents are directed not to be precipitative unless there is due decision in the light of this Court's observation and by a reasoned order that would pass muster in law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed, and the fourth
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Karnataka Education Act, 1983 — s. 34.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.