THZ HIGH C’TT OF KT i-i’ BACLO?E P D ‘rH TE THE 30TH D4Y OP JUE 1998 BEFOPE H0NBIF N.JtTICE TI?T9 S .THzKU WRIT PT ITIOjjOF9 BET WE N: Gaanasree ultura1 Socf1 E’ucatjonl Assocjtjon (p) KrIshndevarayanagar 0 2 Stage, Bngalore56O 078, by it Secretary Ramesh, Najor, s/o Icrishnappa ,,PFTlTIOE (By Sri Yarsh Desai,k3v.) 1. The State of Karnataka 1 by its Secretary to the Depart. ent o4 Dducation, N .3 .Buiiaing, Bara1ore56O 001. 2. “ill Iria Council for Teacher Edtation (rE), Southern Regional Coninittee, No.66, 6th Nain, 4th Block, Rajajinagar, BangaloreS60 010, by the Regional Director, ..RESPONDEkIrS (By Nr,gcK.Pamesh,?GA for 1; y Sri .V.Shailerdra Kumar,.Zv.for P2) Writ Petjjon is filed under Article 226 of the Dntjttfn of India prring todrect respondent no.1 State Government to issue o jction Certificate in favour of the p’titioner to ‘trt 2 year ?CH CoursCanasree T! lleoe forthwith ard for grant of such othr reliefs, This ptition coming on for orders this dy, the Court made the followirg: 0 RD DR V -2- OR I) ER The petitioner apcears to 1ve made an apolication seeking a No Objection Certlfic 5 te from the State Government for e.stablishing a Teacher : Training Institutj 0 n This apPlication was rejected by an order dated 15.11,1994 (anexux’o-jJ to the netitloner onthe ground that the State Gcvernnent had tahen a policy decision not to permit any such institutIons to come up till the end of 8th Five Year Plan, Upon the eqhrry of the 8th Five dtar plan, the petitioner appears to have made fresh spplcatons vide Annexure—D, B 3 rid F requesting the State Governrnt to grant a No Objection Certificate, These applications are pending before the State Govcrnrent, Tie second respondent-Council has in the sean-while through its southern Region 5 ,l Corrittee instructed the petitioner to produce a No Objection Certificate from the state Gcvernmset filng which its aJ?plication for permission to establish the institttion shall not be processed further and rr 2 y be treated as closed. ,, S :3: The retiticner I; auu £ b- okgrourd rrad for nandari ‘reeting U e State Go’errrnent to issue tse No Ubjeotlon Certiflc 2 te atK ]sD a Jire :tton to tPe 2n respondent to oon’iZsr the rtiticnerfc aPPIIC’ tion for grant of pernis:ion, 2. Fr. Shailenfra Nixnr, learned Counsel apearirc for the 2nd respondent points out tn 5t sInce tue rettioner proposes to set up a neu institution, proouction of a No Objeo4. n Certificate is one of the requir e t pro’orihed under Reguition 5 of t a tot. Ha hatcs that the question of r rtir’ an ision t thepetiti r £ sr’eo Fe Objecti r ‘6 tificat o iot rI a nd that tke Ooun’il justified I clinin to c t a l , 1 ,ti p for 3 ntof the ,P , r iPi3 for the 3tte Gva thor hand subuits tt a]. t p lication rade O tile petitioner r icr s beer recoted, its fresh aprlioatiens ould be considered d cis’sos&. of t’ithin a period of tnc mrths If so directed by this Dourt, 4 4 :4: Ze;E.titircr’..apyiicatiflfr o tnt of tie r uisitc OctUicat6 ‘at va(e as tot’ bacZ cs in Jul 1997. reriy one ‘%t’ eg eLao°cd Si ce ti i lout any fruitful action in to r..aM r. P’s continued cnCency of’ tie apr.ications IU by t e pc.titior r for 1 n’ tin c.rtitlc it to mn&ni: fro this 3ourt direct.nj the ]ovcrnsant to consiCer the sane a’d las 3 ppropriat ox rserecitioLd.y. 4. In the result, tMs a’it Petition ‘uccats but only ii pait aM to le ox exit that t to State Govcrnrent sh11 consiOcr the petitioner’ s ..pplintion for a No Obecticn Gertificate arc! pas° oreers expritiou’ 7 anC ac fr s posib1t ittbir a pc. iod of tlr rnths or ti)) tile app1cation al 0 jt ,c io a fly ‘e £ tx atatc. )ov.ra’2e., whichevar is itter the tn( reportent sSuJ.1 zzt rc3ect the ptitincx’ rue ,i t C Paflies to be 0 r their o’ai costs. ill JUDGE v — I.