NOOLI CHANNAYYA SMARAKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act vide Registration No. 121/1992-93 dated 09. 10. 1992. It is contended that the Society is managed by the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and that it has all the infrastructure such as school building on a rental basis, play ground, Library and well equipped Laboratory for running the Higher Secondary School. It made an application to the respondents for grant of recognition to start Higher Secondary School in the name and style of "sri Bannimahankali Higher secondary School" at Nargund Town in Gadag District. The 4th respondent forwarded the proposal to the State Government and the State Government by its order dated 25. 09. 1993 accorded recognition for opening Higher Secondary School at Nargund Town in Gadag District. The petitioner was conducting the course for the last ten years, without there being any grant from the State Government.

(2.) IT is further contended that the 4th respondent issued a notice dated 28. 02. 2002 to the petitioner - Society directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the recognition granted earlier should not be cancelled as per Section 39 of the Education Act. The petitioner submitted its reply denying the charges levelled against it. The 4th respondent cancelled the recognition by the order dated 16. 07. 2002. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Revision in r. P. No. 1/2002 before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has also dismissed the revision by the order dated 09. 02. 2004. Therefore, petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for quashing of the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 16. 07. 2002 (Annexure 'd') and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 09. 02. 2004 (Annexure 'g')

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed objections contending that the State Government had granted recognition to the petitioner- Society to start High School for the academic year 1993-94 with certain conditions. Even after nine years of establishing the School, the petitioner has failed to provide necessary infrastructure to run the High School. It is contended that the petitioner does not have its own building and does not possess Laboratory, Library and Play Ground. Therefore, in exercise of power under Section 39 of the Education Act, they have withdrawn the recognition and initiated action for taking over the movable and immovable properties of the Institution.