SRI JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA VISHWA DHARMA VIDYA PEETH, HARIHAR & ANR. Vs. SRI C.F. AKALANDASWAMY MATH & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 1-6-1979 passed by the District Judge and the Education Appellate Tribunal, Chitradurga, in M. A. No.341 of 1978 on I. A. Nos. 5 and 6 allowing the said applications and permitting respondent No. 1 to cross-examine petitioner-2 and also examine himself in the appeal and further directing the summoning of the documents as prayed for in I. A. No. 6.

(2.) The contentions of Sri B. G. Sridharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, are that the appellate Tribunal has not considered the objections raised by the petitioners and hence the order in question is not a speaking order; that under Section 10 (4) (c) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline & Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it was not open for the Appellate Tribunal to allow the first respondent to adduce fresh evidence. The learned counsel also further contended that the manner in which the District Judge has rejected the objections, would go to show that he has not considered the contentions of the petitioners and has also not given reasons as to why it has become necessary to allow the first respondent to adduce evidence in the appeal and as such, it is not a speaking order.

(3.) The District Judge, in paras 9 and 10 of the order, has recorded a finding that the feelings between petitioner No. 2 and the first respondent were very much strained and there was no love lost between them and as such, no reasonable opportunity was afforded to respondent No. 1 while conducting an enquiry. It was also found by the District Judge that certain ex parte proceedings have been taken by the enquiry committee and the 1st respondent was not able to put forth his case before the enquiry committee. The District Judge has also recorded a finding on consideration of the material placed before him that he was satisfied that it was absolutely necessary that the first respondent should be permitted to adduce evidence by way of cross-examining the second petitioner and by examining himself in the course of the appeal. Thus, it is clear that the contention of the petitioners that the learned District Judge has not considered the objections filed by them, hence the order is not a speaking order, is not acceptable.