SAMATHA VIDYA SAMSTHE BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) i have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and also the learned Advocate who represents the 3rd respondent-school. The dispute in this case is that the petitioners were running a small school at mariyappanapalya within the suburbs of bangalore and they contend that the 3rd respondent-institution has shifted its institution within the immediate proximity of the petitioners school. According to them, the authorities should not have permitted this because they were the earlier institution and secondly because the newly shifted institution has the direct result of attracting a greater number of students there as a result of which the petitioners are finding it difficult to survive. The learned Advocate submits that despite the representations that were made to the authorities that they have granted the permission and that even if the permission holds good for the high school, that the same should be revoked as far as the primary school is concerned.

(2.) learned Advocate who represents respondent 3 points out that his clients have not bypassed any of the requirements and that the government in recognition of the fact that they are running several other institutions granted them the required land and he further submits that it is wrong to state that they are within the immediate proximity of the petitioners and that there is sufficient distance between the two. More importantly, the learned Advocate demonstrates from the record that if the respondent 3 has complied with all the requirements, that it is also implicit that the authorities have considered the aspect of competition between the institutions and that therefore no interference is called for from this court.

(3.) the fact remains that the petitioners are the smaller of the two and they had opened the school in that area prior to the respondent 3. It is also very clear to me that irrespective of the actual distance between the two, that if the respondent 3 runs a primary school closeby, that the first preference of the students would be for that school and that there is every possibility that the petitioners may not be able to attract enough of students. Undoubtedly, the authorities should have taken this aspect of the matter into consideration before permitting the respondent 3 to commence a primary school there. However today, since both the institutions are running, this court will have to balance the equities and do Justice to both the contesting parties. On a due consideration of the facts, a fair Order would require that a solution be found which would balance the grievance of the petitioners on the one side with the corresponding interests of the respondents on the other.