SHRI ANNAPPA TERADAL v. CHANABASAPPA

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) GRANT AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.E1307131 DPUE- EST30DC(OTH)/3/2024-R AND G DATED 23.05.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. B) GRANT AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER’S COLLEGE TO FUNCTION FURTHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7278 WP No. 103428 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) This petition is filed by the petitioner, a Pre-University College. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders at Annexure-G and Annexure-N.

2. It is the case of petitioner that the respondent had granted permission to run the Pre-University College in the year 2019 without grant-in-aid. After which, the college has been functioning till date. It is the contention of learned Senior counsel Sri M.B.Naragund appearing for petitioner- college that petitioner-college has fulfilled all the necessary requirements as sought for to run the institution pre- university college with all infrastructure, buildings, laboratories, teaching staff and non-teaching staff, etc. This being the situation, the 2nd respondent without application of mind and collusion with the private individuals cancelled the permission of petitioner-college Code No.DC0398 on

23.05.2025, which according to learned senior counsel is illegal and arbitrary and unknown to principles of natural - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7278 WP No. 103428 of 2025 HC-KAR justice and law. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said cancellation of registration of the petitioner’s pre-university college.

3. Learned AGA accepts notice for all the respondents. 4 Learned senior counsel Sri M.B.Naragund appearing for petitioner-college vehemently contends cancellation of the registration order passed in the impugned order by respondent No.2 is without any jurisdiction, no proper authority and without following the principles of natural justice, which is a fundamental requirement in passing any order against any person or organization. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of non-issuance of notice and non-hearing of petitioner while passing the impugned order. It is also contended by learned senior counsel that there are more than 800 students studying in the petitioner’s college. Due to rival claims made by another person, who intends to start an Ayurvedic Medical College, the present order is passed in collusion with the said third party against the petitioner-institution, which has nothing to do with the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7278 WP No. 103428 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner’s/pre-university college and necessary documents were produced at the time of permission. Therefore, he seeks for quashing of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent.

5. Per contra, learned AGA Sri P.N.Hatti vehemently contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by respondent No.2. Primarily, he raises two serious questions, one the petition being maintainable before this Court in view of there being an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Secondly, he also contends that the submission of learned senior counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that in the impugned order itself there is service of notice to the petitioner and petitioner filed its reply and therefore according to the learned AGA, petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceeding. Hence, the question of violation of principles of natural justice would not arise in the present case. Therefore, he sustains the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7278 WP No. 103428 of 2025 HC-KAR

6. I have heard the learned senior counsel Sri M.B.Naragund on behalf of learned counsel Sri Avinash M. Angadi for the petitioner and learned AGA Sri P.N.Hatti for respondent/State.

7. This petition can be disposed of on the ground that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Since there is an alternative efficacious remedy of the appeal which is provided in the above said provision, it may not be proper for this Court to proceed further on the merits of the matter. Petitioner would have to be relegated to the appellate authority to redress its grievances before the said authority.

8. Be that as it may, in view of fact that the petitioner institution is a Pre-university College and presently there are more than 800 students studying in petitioner-institution, some interim protection would have to be granted to the petitioner to see that the students are not put into difficulty. As any order i.e., going to be passed would effect the students, who have taken admission in good faith in the petitioner education institution. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7278 WP No. 103428 of 2025 HC-KAR

9. In similar matter, this Court has passed an order on

19.08.2021 in Writ Petition No.8877/2021 (EDN-EX) reserving liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the appellate authority. Under the circumstances, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Petition is disposed of. (ii) Liberty is reserved the petitioner approach appellate authority to challenge the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-N. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of the operation and execution of the impugned order for a period of four weeks from today. (iii) The respondents shall not take any coercive precepitative action as the impugned order at Annexure-N is stayed for a period of four weeks. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7278 WP No. 103428 of 2025 HC-KAR (iv) It is open for the petitioner to argue the matter before the appellate authority with regard to previous batch and the permission having been granted by the respondent vide Annexure-N dated 23.05.2025. (v) The appellate authority shall be at liberty to deal with the matter independently without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. Ordered accordingly. (vi) No opinion is expressed by this Court on merits of the matter and all contention of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23