JAGADGURU MURUGARAJENDRA POLYTECHNIC Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are unaided private polytechnics. They have impugned in these writ petitions Government Order dated 22/24th July 1989 (Annexure-T in Writ Petition No. 13833 of 1989) in so far as it directs their closure.

(2.) Admitted events, which have preceded issuance of the impugned Government Order, warrant a brief mention before considering the question of its sustainability- Petitioner-Polytechnics had been established pursuant to the Government's common letter of intent dated 26th June 1985 (Annexure-R1 in Writ Petition No. 13833 of 1989) issued to them. Annexure-1 to that Annexure-Rl refers to certain conditions, subject to which the petitioners-Polytechnics were permitted to be established. The Government, by its Order No. ED 56 TPE 86 dated 5th May 1987, constituted a Committee of three members headed by Prof. K.A. Krishna Murthy to go into the working of the private unaided polytechnics in the State and make a report to it (Government) on the question whether any of them warrants closure or continuance. That committee made a report to the Government on the working of all the private unaided polytechnics in the State including the petitioners- Polytechnics. On the basis of the said report, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners as well, calling upon them to have their say as regards the report of that committee. On receipt of the explanations offered by the Managements of the petitioners- Polytechnics disputing the correctness of the report, on the basis of which show cause notices were issued, and calling upon the Government to withdraw those show cause notices, the Government, by its Order No. ED 56 TPE 87 (Part-I) dated 11-8-1988, constituted four Zonal Committee to inspect the polytechnics coming in their respective Zones, and make a report as to whether closure or continuance of any of such polytechnics has to be ordered. The Zonal Committees so constituted having inspected the polytechnics, gave their respective reports to the Government, however, making a suggestion in so far as the petitioners- Polytechnics are concerned, for their continuance during the academic year 1988-89 and for making a fresh inspection respecting their continuance for the year 1989-90. The Government accepted the reports of the Zonal Committees. However, by its Order No. ED 195 TPE 88 dated 29-12-1988, it constituted another committee of four members headed by Prof. H. Puttaiah to inspect all the private unaided polytechnics in the State including the petitioners-Polytechnics, and make a report on matters, such as, buildings, laboratories, workshops, equipment, teaching staff, finances of those polytechnics. That Committee is said to have made a report in the matter on 18-5-1989 to the Government. Thereupon, a notice dated 25-5-1989 of similar content has come to be issued to each of the petitioners- Polytechnics calling upon them to show cause why closure of each of them should not be ordered on account of unsatisfactory conditions prevailing in them. Replies being given to such notice by each of the petitioners- Polytechnics, the Government, by its Order No. ED 74 TPE 89 dated 8-6-1989, constituted a Committee of three members headed by Sri C.A. Manje Gowda to examine the replies so given by the petitioners- Polytechnics after necessary inspection of the polytechnics. That committee having in- spected the unaided private polytechnics including the petitioners-Polytechnics, gave a report on 4-7-1989 to the Government. On the basis of that report, the Government, by its Order No. ED 74 TPE 89 dated 22/24th July 1989, ordered the closure of ten private polytechnics including the petitioners- Polytechnics. It is that Government Order which has been impugned in these writ petitions, as stated at the outset.

(3.) The contention urged for the petitioners-Polytechnics was that the impugned order directing the closure or withdrawing the recognition of private unaided polytechnics, could not have been made by the Government without complying with the procedural safeguards provided for under Conditions 25 and 26 in Annexure-1 to Annexure-R1 as conditions precedent for making such order of closure or withdrawal of recognition and the impugned Government Order having been made respecting the petitioners-Polytechnics without observing such procedural safeguards calls to be nullified in so far as the petitioners-Polytechnics are concerned.