VIDYA JAGURTHI TRUST DODDABALLAPUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought three reliefs (a) issuance of a writ of certiorari or other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 1/2 September, 1989, bearing No. ED. 392 PGC 89, passed by the 1st respondent, that is, the State by its Secretary, Education Department as well as (b) for issuance of a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the permission to the petitioner to start a English Medium Primary School at Main Road, Doddaballapur, in the name and style of M.A. Beemaiah Lakshmi Devamma English Nursery and Primary School in accordance with the application of the petitioner as well as to grant recognition.

(2.) The petitioner which is a Trust established in 1987, with the object to start the school for primary education moved an application seeking permission to start the school. That according to the petitioner, the petitioner invested a lot of amount or sums to establish that school, as there was lot of demand for running the school, the school was started from the academic year 1988-89, in expectation of permission being granted. Further, the petitioner's case been that representations to that effect were made by 200 persons of the locality in writing for starting English Medium Primary School. That the parents of the children also requested the petitioner to start the Primary English Medium School. That the respondents did not consider the petitioner's application for grant of permission or recognition to start Primary (English Medium) School, as such the petitioner was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 6471 of 1989, in this Court i.e., this Hon'ble Court allowed the said writ petition vide the judgment dated 11-4-1989, directing the opposite parties to consider petitioner's application for grant of permission and recognition for starting its Primary School in English Medium at M.A. Complex, Kuchappapet, Doddaballapur and to accord permission from the academic year 1988-89, if the petitioner had satisfied all the conditions of Grant-in-Aid Code Rules (except the medium of instruction). That the respondents were also directed to comply with the order within four weeks from the date of its receipt. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, respondent 4, inspected the school premises and submitted that there were 100 students in Nursery Section which was also English Medium and there were another 100 English Medium students studying in the Primary School. The respondent 4, gave a satisfactory report and recommended for permission for starting English Medium Primary School being granted in favour of the petitioner. With these recommendations, the respondents 2 and 3 expressed their approval and respondents 2 and 3 also made their recommendations. But, in spite of all those recommendations made, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner's application for grant of permission to start the English Medium Primary School by its order dated 1/2 September, 1989, copy of which Annexure-B to this writ petition. Having felt aggrieved from that order dated September 1, 1989, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Notice had been issued to respondents. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Rule was issued on 19-9-1989 and four weeks was granted for filing the statement of objections in 1989. Interim relief sought was not granted in this case by this Court. Therefore, now the learned High Court Government Pleader sought permission to file the counter affidavit. But, it is too late now to grant further time, because this is a matter of 1989. The Department itself should have been careful to file the statement of objections and the counter affidavit within the time granted by the Court vide order dated 19-9-1989 and if it could not file that in time, efforts should have been made to file the same earlier with the permission of the Court. Nothing has been done during the period of almost 7 years and it is now too late to allow any further time.