AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V Srishananda, J
Heard Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt.Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3/State and Sri Harshavardhan R.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
Writ petition is filed with the following prayer:-
“A writ of certiorari or any other order of the like and quash the impugned order/direction dated 29.08.2020 in File No.KAVASHISASUM/Adalith/B.C/01/2018-19 of the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-E and the consequential orders dated 01.09.2020 in File No.JIHIMVAKARA/ MoDESHA/ SIBANDHI/ CR/2020-21/674 of the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-F and the intimation letter dated 0509.2020 in tile No.SHRI.E.GA.VA.SHA.KA/ SHA.STHA/Cr-2020-21 of the respondent No.4 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition in the interest of justice.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other command of the like nature and direct the respondent No.2 and 4 to continue the functioning of Smt.Indira Gandhi Residentail School from the premises in Sy.No.205/1 of Village Kallur belonging to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
Writ petitioner constructed a school as per the agreement marked at Annexure-C on 01.07.2019. Conditions imposed by the Government implicitly followed by the petitioner. The school was successfully run for considerable time as per the agreement. Without issuing three months notice school was shifted purportedly at the instruction of the elected MLA, who wrote a letter to the Executive Director of Karnataka Vasathi Sikshana Samsthegala Sangha, Bengaluru on 26.08.2020. As such, the school was shifted from the petitioner’s premises to some other premises without following the rules and regulations. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for petitioner contends that when there is an agreement, the Government/respondent Nos.1 to 3 were required to adhere to the terms of the agreement and pass suitable orders and not at the whims and fancies of the elected representative vide Annexure-H and sought for allowing the petition.
Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and 2/State and Sri Harshavardhan R.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.5 supports the shifting of the petitioner’s school on the ground that the agreement time has expired and therefore agreement has to come to an end by afflux of time.
Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that based on Annexure-H, the school was shifted. Why the elected representative should direct the Executive Director of of Karnataka Vasathi Sikshana Samsthegala Sangha, Bengaluru, to shift the school is a question of remains unanswered.
Further, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were required to follow the rules before ordering for shifting the school from the petitioner’s premises to some other place, having not followed the required procedure and having not adhered the terms of the agreement and are not justified in shifting the school unilaterally that too at the behest of the elected representative who wrote a letter vide Annexure-H.
Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. While so passing the appropriate orders, respondent Nos.1 to 3 may also consider the conditions of the agreement at Annexure-C or in the alternative compensate the petitioner.
With these directions, the following order is passed :
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) Annexures-E, F and G are quashed.
iii) The representation of the petitioner to continue the school in the petitioner’s premises is to be considered by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days from today.
Let a copy of this order be made available to the parties by tomorrow i.e., 02.03.2024, if applied.