ANJANEYA VIDYA SAMSTHE REGD SC AND STINSTITUTION ANEKONDA DAVANGERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitioners happen to be running B.Ed. Colleges and it is their case that they had filed applications dated 17-8-1994 and 16-9-1994 seeking regularisation of the institutions. According to them, the respondent-authorities have not till the present point of time, either granted the applications or rejected them. Petitioner's grievance is that in the month of February 1996, they have received notices stating that since the institutions are unauthorised, that legal action is proposed to be taken against them. Petitioner's learned Advocate submits that the State Government had taken a decision to permit the students of several similarly situated institutions to do their examinations, but that for reasons best known to the authorities, that the names of the petitioners-institutions were not included in that list. He states that this fact was brought to the notice of the Minister for Education despite which, no corrective action has been taken. That however, is a separate issue which is not germane to the decision of this Court.

(2.) The solitary grievance here is that the petitioners have been threatened with legal action and the learned Advocate submits that such a course of action is without jurisdiction because the petitioners have been applying for the last several years both for starting the institution as also for regularising it, that the authorities have not considered those applications and that consequently, the petitioners are not vulnerable to steps being taken against them because they have complied with their part of the requirements by having filed the applications for recognition/regularisation. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that even assuming the applications were filed, and if for whatever reason the authorities have not granted the applications, that the petitioners were not justified in having started the institutions in question without having obtained the due sanctions. He submits that since the petitioners have taken the liberty of doing so, that the authorities are justified in taking action against them.

(3.) The position in law is quite clear insofar as it is not permissible to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for purposes of obtaining a direction against the State to desist from taking legal action in cases where the regulations empower the State to do so. If the action were malicious, mala fide or unjustified, it would be open to a citizen or an institution to request the Court to intervene because, in that case, the application itself would be prima facie unjustified. In the present instance, the only point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that they had applied for the requisite sanctions and thereafter, for regularisation and that the authorities did not grant it. Consequently, it is contended that in this background, it would be unjustified to take action against the petitioners. I am unable to uphold this submission for the reason that there is no question of contending in law that there was deemed permission. Apart from this, this State has virtually acquired a bad name because of the large number of institutions that have been started without obtaining the due approvals. There has been an epidemic of such cases and the Government and the Courts are being flooded with, the applications, stensibly on behalf of students seeking to contend that the sction which is patently illegal and irregular should be white-washed and should be regularised. A misnomer unfortunately exists to the effect that an action which is prohibited by law or which is illegal at that point of time, can be converted into a legality and that too, retrospectively through a so-called process of regularisation. This is down right and patently improper and impermissible and a course of action which can never ever either be permitted or upheld by any Court of law. It is in this background that it would not be permissible for this Court to intervene at this point of time vis-a-vis the present action.