B.H. DORESWAMY Vs. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the endorsement dated 26.11.2012 issued by the Block Education Officer, Holenarasipura, vide Annexure -W, thereby informing the petitioner that the application submitted by them for establishing Primary School in Kannada Medium from 1st to 5th Standard for the academic year 2013 -14 at Hariharapura Village, Halekote Hobli, in Holenarasipura Taluk, has been rejected. A perusal of the impugned endorsement discloses that the application is rejected on the ground that there is already in existence a Government Primary School within a radius of 50 meters from the place where the proposed School is intended to be constructed.

(2.) THE main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned endorsement is opposed to the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has not been heard before issuing the impugned endorsement. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mariamma Roy Vs. Indian Bank and Others, 2008 (12) SCALE 451 contending that in such circumstances, although an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal is provided under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act'), petitioner need not be driven to the appellate remedy because of the violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) IT is also to be noticed that Chapter -VI of the Act provides under Section 36, the provisions for recognition to be accorded to an educational institution registered under the Act on fulfillment of certain conditions. In Section 36(7) of the Act, provision is made for holding inspection and conducting enquiry as may be deemed necessary by the Competent Authority before passing an order granting recognition or refusing to accord recognition. Proviso to Sub -clause (7) of Section 36 provides that recognition shall not be so refused, unless the applicant is given an opportunity of being heard. In this background and in the face of the provisions contained under Section 36 of the Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not entitled for being heard before the application was rejected. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner ought to have been heard before issuing the impugned endorsement as the principles of natural justice have been violated. It is not necessary for the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal.