HARSHA HOSPITAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judgment

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRSENTED BY ITS CHEIF SECRETARY DEPARMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION MS BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES KARNATAKA BENGALURU REPRSENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR/ VICE-CHANCELLOR 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 041.

4. SRI SRINIVASA CHARITABLE TRUST, (REGISTERED PUBLIC TRUST) NO 5743, BACK SIDE OF PWD QUARTERS SUBHASHNAGAR NEALMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL – 562 132. REPRSENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI S SHIVAKUMAR. S SHIVAKUMAR S/O SRI SIDDALINGAPPA TRUSTEE SRI SRINIVASA CHARITABLE AND EDUCATION TRUST AGED ABOUT 53 R/AT NO 193/4, BYRASWESHWARNAGAR SONDEKOPPA CIRLCE NELAMAGNALA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR

5. GIRIJA W/O SHIVAKUMAR S TRUSTEE SRI SRINIVASA CHARITABLE AND EDUCATION TURST AGED ABOUT 45 R/AT NO 193/4, BYRAVESWARNAGAR SONDEKOPPA CIRCLE NELAMANGALA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R-1 SRI. B.K. BOPPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. T. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-5) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING R2 TO INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS IN ANNEXURE-J DTD 09.01.2024 AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST R3,R4 AND R5 AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.04.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV ORDER In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- “A. Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No. 2 to investigate the complaint given by the Petitioners in Annexure-J, dated 09/01/2024 and take appropriate action against Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR B. Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling upon the records leading to the issuance of the continuation of affiliation dated 20/02/2024, RGUHS/ACA/AFF/Continuation/BPT/MPT/2/2023-24 vide Annexure-K and quash the same. C. Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondent No. 1 to initiate an independent inquiry into the allegations of fraud, misappropriation, and other illegal activities committed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and to take appropriate legal action based on the findings of the inquiry. D. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the award of costs to the Petitioners.”

2. Briefly stated, the petitioners have filed the present petition interalia contending as under:- The 1st petitioner claims to be a registered partnership firm, which was constituted between petitioner No.2 - G.H.Prakash, late H.Shivakumar, respondent No.4 – S.Shivakumar and his wife Girija G., respondent No.5 herein. The petitioners 3, 4 and 5 are the wife and children of late H.Shivakumar, the aforesaid partner of 1st petitioner – Firm. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR

2.1 It is contended that the 1st petitioner – Firm was registered under the name and style “Harsha Hospital” and in order to fulfill the object of the firm, the partners purchased converted land bearing Sy.No.193/4 measuring 39 guntas situated at Nelamangala village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, vide registered sale deed dated

30.04.2004. The 3rd respondent - Sri.Srinivasa Charitable Trust was constituted vide registered Trust Deed dated 16.06.2003 comprising of respondents 4 and 5 and Smt.S.Shantha and Smt.S.Ganga as trustees with the object of promoting Education, Health care and social welfare. It is contended that petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 being partners of Harsha Hospital mutually agreed to start educational institutions on the aforesaid land in the name of 3rd respondent – Trust. It is further contended that the petitioners discovered recently that respondents 4 and 5 have engaged in illegal activities concerning the operations of the partnership firm including criminal breach of trust, cheating, fraud, siphoning of funds, misappropriation of assets, falsification of accounts and collusion to defraud the petitioners and other stake holders. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR

2.2 Petitioners contend that they recently learnt that respondents 4 and 5 are operating a physiotherapy course on the Firm’s premises without authorization as per Notifications issued by 2nd respondent – RGUHS from 2016 to 2022 in favour of Harsha Institute of Physiotherapy. It is contended that they obtained documents submitted by respondents 4 and 5 for the purpose of continuation of affiliation for the academic year 2023-24 to RGUHS and found that a forged lease agreement dated 21.11.2011 was produced by them for the purpose of renewal and upon enquiries, petitioners obtained a certified copy of a deed of lease agreement from the office of Sub-Registrar which differed significantly in the schedule, total extent of property and security deposit amount which indicated that they had forged the document for the purpose of securing continuation of affiliation. It is further contended that the same document was furnished by respondents 4 and 5 to fraudulently obtain affiliation for Harsha Public International School, Nelamangala and a complaint filed by the petitioners has resulted in an FIR which has been stayed by this Court.

2.3 Petitioners contend that they gave a complaint to 2nd respondent – RGUHS requesting investigation and not to grant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR affiliation in favour of Harsha Institute of Physiotherapy for the academic year 2023-24, despite which the 2nd respondent issued impugned Notification at Annexure-K dated 20.02.2024 continuing the affiliation in favour of respondents 3 to 5 at Sl.No.13 and as such, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Respondents 3 to 5 have filed their statement of objections interalia disputing and denying the various allegations and claim made by the petitioners. It is contended that apart from the fact that the petitioners do not have locus standi to prefer the present petition, they are guilty of suppression of material facts and have not come to Court with clean hands and are not entitled to any relief in the present petition, which is filed with malafide intentions and ulterior motives by suppressing various prior / previous litigations and disputes between the petitioners and them.

It is contended that the petition is not maintainable in relation to the unaided private educational institutions, Harsha Institute of Physiotherapy being run by Sri.Srinivasa Charitable Trust and academic matters of 2nd respondent – University by granting continuation of affiliation in favour of 3rd respondent are not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that respondents 3 to 5 are running physiotherapy courses in property bearing No.7568 and No.7380, Byraveshwara Nagar, Dadapeer layout, Nelamangala town, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, after obtaining necessary affiliation from 2nd respondent – RGUHS from 2016 onwards which is being continued from that time including the affiliation granted vide impugned Notification dated 20.02.2024 for the academic year 2023-24. It is contended that the aforesaid properties were purchased by respondents 3 to 5 vide registered sale deeds dated 01.10.2008 and 23.09.2010 and after due inspection, the RGUHS granted and continued affiliation in favour of the said college. The respondents 3 to 5 specifically and categorically denied that they had submitted a forged deed of lease agreement dated 21.11.2011 for the purpose of obtaining and seeking continuation of the affiliation to run the Harsha Institute of Physiotherapy and the various allegations regarding fraud, forgery, cheating, misappropriation, collusion etc., urged by the petitioners have been specifically denied by the respondents 3 to 5. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR

3.1 At paragraph-17 of their statement of objections, respondents 3 to 5 have detailed the various civil and criminal litigations, disputes, proceedings, arbitrations etc., as per Table-1 and Table-2 from 2017 onwards between the petitioners and respondents comprising of about 19 matters as indicated therein in order to contend that the petitioners are repeatedly harassing and intimidating these respondents. It is further contended that an identical complaint given by the petitioners requesting 2nd respondent – RGUHS to withdraw continuation of affiliation granted to one more institute, i.e., Harsha College of Nursing culminated in an Endorsement dated 31.08.2023 issued by RGUHS to the petitioners. Under these circumstances, respondents 3 to 5 sought for dismissal of the petition.

3.2 During the pendency of the present petition preferred on

20.08.2024, respondents 3 to 5 filed a memo dated 15.04.2025 enclosing a copy of the continuation of affiliation dated 24.09.2024 granted by 2nd respondent – RGUHS in their favour for the academic year 2024 – 2025 and accordingly, contend that the present petition seeking quashing of the continuation of affiliation - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR for the previous academic year 2023-24 has been rendered infructuous and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The petitioners have filed their rejoinder to the objections filed by the respondents 3 to 5 and disputed the various contentions urged by them. The specific contention urged by the respondents 3 to 5 that Harsha Institute of Physiotherapy is being run at properties bearing No.7568 and No.7380 has been specifically disputed and denied by the petitioners who contend that while there is no structure / building on property No.7568, the building / structure put up on property No.7380 was illegal and unauthorised. It is contended that the petitioners being partners of Harsha Hospital are entitled to seek the intervention of this Court to address illegalities involving allegations of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation based on fraudulent documents submitted by respondents 3 to 5 which had not been verified by 2nd respondent – RGUHS which did not exercise due diligence before granting and continuing affiliation in favour of Harsha Institute to Physiotherapy. It is contended that merely because there are civil and criminal disputes pending between the parties, the serious allegations of forgery put forth by the petitioners warrant independent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR adjudication and that the petitioners have legal right to seek redressal of their specific illegalities. It is therefore contended that the various contentions urged by the respondents liable to be rejected.

5. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for respondents 3 to 5 and learned AGA for 1st respondent as well as learned counsel for 2nd respondent – RGUHS and perused the material on record.

6. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners 2 to 5 are partners of petitioner No.1 – Harsha Hospital which is the rightful owner of property bearing Sy.No.193/4 which is being unauthorisedly used by respondents 3 to 5 to run its physiotherapy Institute based on a forged lease document, thereby affecting the rights of the petitioners who have a direct and substantial interest in challenging the affiliation and as such, petitioners are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in the present petition. It is contended that 2nd respondent has acted arbitrarily without exercising due diligence and without considering or hearing the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR complaint of the petitioners and granted illegal continuation of affiliation, despite non-compliance of RGUHS norms. It is submitted that under identical circumstances in relation to Harsha Public International School, the very same act of forgery was challenged the petitioners herein in W.P.No.20699/2023 which was disposed of vide final order dated 15.04.2025 directing CBSE to investigate into the matter and an appropriate enquiry in this regard may be directed in the present petition also. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others – 1965 SCC OnLine SC 25; (ii) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Others – (1976) 1 SCC 671; (iii) Sir M. Visveshwaraya Education Trust vs. State of Karnataka 1991 SCC OnLine Kar 306; (iv) Sri. Arjunappa and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others c/w Sri Narayanappa and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others – W.P. No. 49958/2019 c/w. W.P. No. 49959/ 2019 dated 18.07.2022; (v) Sri Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt vs. State of Karnataka and Others – W.A. No.769/2022 c/w. W.A. No.745/2022 dated 18.01.2024 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR

7. Per contra, learned AGA for 1st respondent-State and learned counsel for 2nd respondent – RGUHS jointly submit that the impugned Notification directing continuation of affiliation was issued after due verification and by exercising due diligence by taking into account that affiliation had been granted from 2016 onwards and continued from year to year and since there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the affiliation, the 2nd respondent proceeded to issue the impugned Notification, which does not warrant interference in the present petition, which is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned Senior counsel for respondents 3 to 5 would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submit that apart from the fact that the petitioners do not have locus standi to prefer the present petition, they do not have any legally enforceable right to approach this Court and in addition to the fact that the writ petition is not maintainable against respondents 3 to 5 who are running a private unaided educational institutions and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the various contentions urged by the petitioners give rise to complex, complicated and disputed questions of fact which - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR are incapable of adjudication in the present petition and the petitioners having suppressed material facts including earlier civil and criminal litigations, disputes etc., between the parties are not entitled to any reliefs in the present petition, which is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for respondents 3 to 5 have placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P and Ors. - (2001) 4 SCC 734; (ii) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. - (2013) 4 SCC 465; (iii) Dr.Rai Shivendra Bahadur vs. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif & others - AIR 1962 SC 1210; (iv) St. Mary’s Education Society and Another vs. Rajendra Parasad Bahrgava and Others - (2023) 4 SCC 498; (v) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. And others - 1994 (1) SCC 1; (vi) K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others - (2008) 12 SCC 481; (vii) Chanchalpati Das vs. State of West Bengal and Another - 2023 SCC Online SC 650.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR

10. At the outset, it is relevant to state that prayer No.(B) in the present petition supra, relates to quashing of the impugned Notification (Sl.No.13) vide Annexure-K dated 20.02.2024, whereby the 2nd respondent – RGUHS granted continuation of affiliation in favour of respondents 3 to 5 to run the Harsha Institute of Physiotherapy for the academic year 2023-24. In this context, during the pendency of the present petition preferred on

02.08.2024, the 2nd respondent issued a Notification dated

24.09.2024 granting continuation of affiliation favour of respondents 3 to 5 for the academic year 2024-25, since the impugned Notification was for the previous academic year which stood expired. In view of this subsequent event that has transpired by issuance of the aforesaid Notification dated 24.09.2024 for the academic year 2024-25, the present petition seeking to challenge the impugned Notification dated 20.02.2024 for the previous academic year 2023-24 does not survive any longer and the same has been rendered infructuous.

11. A perusal of the complaint at Annexure-J dated

09.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner will indicate that it is specifically contended that a forged lease agreement dated - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR

21.11.2011 had been submitted by respondents 3 to 5 to 2nd respondent – RGUHS for the purpose of continuation of affiliation in favour of Harsha Institute of Physiotherapy; in this regard, it is significant to note that even according the petitioners themselves, the 2nd respondent had granted affiliation in favour of the said Institute as long back as in the year 2016 and the said affiliation which is valid for a period of one year was continued periodically every year including the academic year 2023-24 by issuing the impugned Notification dated 20.02.2024; the allegation made by the petitioners that the lease agreement dated 21.11.2011 said to have been submitted by respondents 3 to 5 is a forged and fabricated document is seriously disputed and denied by respondents 3 to 5; further, the respondents 3 to 5 submitted a detailed reply dated 11.01.2024, pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent – RGUHS proceeded to continue the affiliation by issuing the impugned Notification.

12. A perusal of the complaint given by the petitioners and the reply given by respondents 3 to 5 culminating in the impugned Notification continuing affiliation and the other material on record will indicate that the serious allegations of fraud put forth by the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioners having been disputed and denied by respondents 3 to 5, the said issue is beyond the scope of examination by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the instant case requires an enquiry into facts arising out of a complex cob-web of facts which are incapable of being adjudicated upon in the present petition, since the same is impermissible in law.

13. In the case of Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam & others – (2021) 20 SCC 454, the Apex Court has reiterated the well settled position that the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not adjudicate upon the hotly disputed questions of fact.

14. In the instant case, the specific plea put forth by the petitioners relates to an alleged production of a allegedly forged lease deed alleged to have been submitted by respondents 3 to 5 requiring detailed examination of oral and documentary evidence within the domain / realm of civil courts involving factual controversies not amenable to determination under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, by way of the present petition, the petitioners seek to assail the impugned Notification continuing affiliation on the ground that the same was obtained by - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR production of a forged lease deed by respondents 3 to 5, who have disputed and denied the claim of the petitioners, thereby leading to the sole conclusion that the said factual controversy / dispute between the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 cannot be gone into in writ proceedings, more particularly when determination / adjudication of the legality, authenticity, genuineness, validity of the alleged lease deed would have to be adjudicated only by the competent civil court and not by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when complex and substantial disputed questions of fact require detailed evidence which is impermissible by way of the present petition.

15. A perusal of the claim of the petitioners will indicate that it is their specific contention that the petitioner No.1 – Firm is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.193/4, in which, respondents 3 to 5 are running the aforesaid Harsha Institute of Physiotherapy having obtained affiliation based on a forged / fabricated lease deed, thereby affecting the rights of the petitioners over the said property. In addition to disputing the various allegations and claim made by the petitioners, respondents 3 to 5 specifically contend that the said Harsha Institute of Physiotherapy is being run in property bearing - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR No.7568 and No.7380, in respect of which, 2nd respondent – RGUHS has granted affiliation and continued the same from 2016 onwards. In this context, it is pertinent to note that while the allegedly forged lease agreement dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure-G) pertains to Khaneshumari No.7568 carved out of Sy.No.191, the lease agreement dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure-H) pertains to property bearing site No.4, Khaneshumari No.4836 / 04, both of which do not relate to Sy.No.193/4 claimed by the petitioners. It follows therefrom that in the light of the specific plea put forth by the petitioners over Sy.No.193/4, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved persons in relation to the aforesaid lease deeds / agreements which do not relate to Sy.No.193 /4 claimed by them, thereby indicating that the petitioners do not have locus standi to maintain the present petition.

16. In Vinoy Kumar’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right favour of the person invoking jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.”

17. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under: “Person aggrieved

9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12] , Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728] , Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044] , Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:30787 WP No. 21472 of 2024 HC-KAR SCC 460 : AIR 1996 SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784] .]

10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR 1974 SC 1719] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361] .)

11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of