Matter remitted back to the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh on merits and in accordance with law: Karnataka High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL 2021 THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1744 OF 2017(EDN RES 1 . VIDYANIDHI EDUCATION TRUSTHAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 6437 SHIVANAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU 560064 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI ASHWIN PAI VIDYASHILP ACADEMY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 6437 SHIVANAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU 560064 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD OF SCHOOL MS. KALAISELVI 2 . BY MISS. NAYANATHARA ALONG WITH MISS. MANASA. B. RAO FOR SRI. G.L. VISHWANATHA ADVOCATES) 1 . 2 . NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA GATE NO 4 1ST FLOOR JEEVAN TARA BUILDING NO 5 SANSAD MARG PATEL CHOWK NEW DELHI 110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY THE DIRECTORATE OF URDU & OTHER LINGUISTIC MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 3 . THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER BY SRI. H. JAYAKARASHETTY ADVOCATE FOR R 1 SRI. S.R. KAMALACHARAN AGA FOR R 2 & R 3) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.20603 20604 2016 DATED: 18.01.2017 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: This appeal takes exception to the impugned order dated 18th January 2017 passed in W.P.Nos.20603 604 2016 by the learned Single Judge whereby the said writ petitions filed by the appellants were disposed off. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellants filed the aforesaid petitions inter alia contending that first appellant Trust which was established in the year 1996 comprised of persons belonging to linguistic minority community and all the trustees who were Konkani speaking were administering the Trust which was running second appellant Educational Institution which was a linguistic minority institution. It was contended that the appellants were affiliated to the ICSE Board and that on 10th September 2015 the jurisdictional Tahsildar issued a certificate certifying that the mother tongue of the trustees of first appellant Trust was Konkani language and as such the appellants were running a linguistic minority institution. 3. The appellants contended that on 18th June 2014 the State Government passed the impugned order circular Annexure F to the writ petition) constituting a Committee for the purpose of verifying the linguistic religious minority status of an educational institution. As per the said order circular which was issued for the purpose of the Right to Education Act 2009 it was directed that the Committee would not only verify that the management of Educational Institutions were members of a linguistic minority the Committee would also confirm that the admission of the students to such Educational Institutions was not less than 50% of the language religious category of the said Educational Institution. In the petition before the learned Single Judge the appellants challenged the said notification dated 18th June 2014. 4. The appellants also contended that they submitted an application to the Public Education Department of the State Government for a declaration that second appellant Educational Institution was a linguistic minorities school since the management of the said Institution was by the first appellant Trust who belonged to the linguistic minority community. By the impugned Endorsement dated 23rd February 2016 the State Government rejected the claim of the appellants inter alia holding that second appellant cannot claim seek the status of a minority Educational Institution on the ground that in the absence of the appellants being notified as linguistic minorities by the Central Government by issuance of a Notification second appellant cannot be considered as a minority Educational Institution. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18th June 2014 and the impugned Endorsement dated 23rd February 2016 both issued by the State Government the appellants preferred the aforesaid writ petition before this Court. 5. During the pendency of the petition before the learned Single Judge it transpired that the aforesaid order circular dated 18th June 2014 was also the subject matter of challenge in other writ petitions W.P.No.4825 2015 and connected matters. However the impugned Endorsement dated 23rd February 2016 which was issued specifically to the appellants herein was obviously not the subject matter of any of the other petitions including W.P.No.4825 2015. After noticing aforesaid W.P.No.4825 2015 had been disposed off vide order dated 16th January 2017 by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide the impugned order dated 18th January 2017 the learned Single Judge disposed off the instant petition also terms of the said order passed W.P.No.4825 2015 dated 16th January 2017. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18th January 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge the appellants are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as learned counsel for first respondent and also learned AGA for second and third respondents and perused the material on record. 7. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Appeal and referring to the documents produced by the appellants learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned Single Judge had committed an error in summarily disposing off the instant petition filed by the appellant in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.4825 2015 and connected matters dated 16th January 2017. In this context learned counsel while inviting our attention to the said order submitted that the facts and circumstances involved in the petitions which were the subject matter of the said order were different from the facts involved in the present appeal and as such the learned Single Judge was not justified in disposing off the instant petitions in terms of the said order. It was submitted that the various grounds and contentions urged by the appellants herein in their petition for the purpose of challenging the impugned order dated 18th June 2014 had neither been urged much less considered or appreciated by the learned Single Judge in the said order passed in W.P.No.4825 2015 and as such the said order could not have been made the basis to dispose off the petitions filed by the appellants. It was also submitted that subsequent to filing of the petitions including during the pendency of the present appeals there have been various subsequent events including proceedings of the State Government orders passed by it decisions orders passed by this Court etc. all of which have a bearing impact on the rights and contentions of the appellants which have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel also submitted that it is not in dispute that in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.4825 2015 the impugned Endorsement dated 23rd February 2016 had not been challenged by the respective petitioners and to appreciate this has resulted in erroneous conclusion which vitiates the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is therefore contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 8. Per contra learned counsel for first respondent as well as learned AGA for second and third respondents while reiterating the various contentions urged in the Statement of Objections and referring to the documents produced by them submit that there is no merit in the appeal and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the learned Single Judge has summarily disposed off the petition in terms of the order dated 16th January 2017 passed in W.P.No.4825 2015 and connected matters. In this context it is relevant to state that though the legality validity and correctness of the order dated 18th June 2014 was specifically assailed by the respective petitioners the same was not considered by the learned Single Judge in his aforesaid order dated 16th January 2017 in other words there was neither any finding nor ruling or decision by the learned Single Judge with regard to the legality correctness or validity of the impugned order dated18th June 2014 which was also challenged by the present appellants in their writ petition before the learned Single Judge in the light of material on record and the various contentions urged by the appellants. 11. Under these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that without considering or appreciating the facts and circumstances involved in the instant case as well as the various contentions urged on behalf of the appellants herein and without entering into any discussion on the merits of the matter the learned Single Judge committed an error in passing impugned order summarily disposing off the petition in terms of the order dated 16th January 2017 passed in W.P.No.4825 2015 and connected matters. 12. It is also significant to note that in the aforesaid petitions in W.P.No.4825 2015 and connected matters the impugned Endorsement dated 23rd February 2016 issued by the second respondent rejecting the request of the appellants for grant of linguistic minority status to the appellants was not challenged by the petitioners therein in view of the fact that the said Endorsement was restricted only to the appellants herein. Under these circumstances without considering the claim of the appellants herein qua the said Endorsement dated 23rd February 2016 the learned Single Judge also erred in summarily disposing off the petition filed by the appellants without noticing this aspect of the matter which clearly distinguished the instant from the facts and circumstances obtaining W.P.No.4825 2015 and connected matters. 13. The material on record also indicates that subsequent to the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge there have been various subsequent events including proceedings of the State Government orders passed by it decisions orders passed by this Court etc. all of which have a bearing impact on the rights and contentions of the appellants which have obviously not been considered by learned Single Judge and consequently it is necessary that even the said subsequent events orders decisions etc. would have to be considered while adjudicating upon the dispute in controversy between the parties. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances without expressing any opinion on merits demerits of the rival contentions and to enable adjudication of the dispute in controversy on merits we deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh on merits and in accordance with law. 15. In the result we pass the following: i) The appeal is hereby allowed ii) The impugned order dated 18th January 2017 passed in W.P.Nos.20603 604 2016 by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and writ petitions are restored to file iii) The writ petitions are remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh on merits and in accordance with law iv) All rival contentions are kept left open and no opinion is expressed on the same. v) Since the appellants had the benefit of an interim order dated 08.03.2017 during the pendency of the appeal we hereby direct the said interim order dated 08.03.2017 passed in this appeal shall continue for a period of three months from today so as to enable the appellants to make W.P.Nos.20603 604 2016 for appropriate interim orders. Sd CHIEF JUSTICE Sd Bmc Srl. 

Summary: Without considering or appreciating the facts and circumstances involved in the instant case, as well as the various contentions urged on behalf of the appellants herein and without entering into any discussion on the merits of the matter, the learned Single Judge committed an error in passing the impugned order. This was said in the case of Vidyanidhi Education Trust vs National Commission For Minority [WRIT APPEAL No.1744 OF 2017] by Chief Justice Mr. Abhay S. Oka, and Mr. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar in the High Court of Karnataka. The facts of the case are that first appellant-Trust, which was established in the year 1996 comprised of persons belonging to linguistic minority community and all the trustees, who were Konkani speaking were administering the Trust, which was running second appellant-Educational Institution, which was a linguistic minority institution. Tthe State Government rejected the claim of the appellants inter alia holding that second appellant cannot claim/seek the status of a minority Educational Institution on the ground that in the absence of the appellants being notified as ‘linguistic minorities’ by the Central Government by issuance of a Notification, second appellant cannot be considered as a minority Educational Institution. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants preferred the aforesaid writ petition before this Court. The petitioner also submitted that Single Judge had committed an error in summarily disposing off the instant petition filed by the appellant. It was submitted that the various grounds and contentions urged by the appellants herein in their petition for the purpose of challenging the impugned order dated 18th June 2014 had neither been urged, much less considered or appreciated by the learned Single Judge in the said order passed in W.P.No.4825/2015 and as such, the said order could not have been made the basis to dispose off the petitions filed by the appellants. After careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Court said that “there was neither any finding nor ruling or decision by the learned Single Judge with regard to the legality, correctness or validity of the impugned order dated18th June 2014, which was also challenged by the present appellants in their writ petition before the learned Single Judge in the light of material on record and the various contentions urged by the appellants”. Furthermore, the Court said that “The material on record also indicates that subsequent to the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, there have been various subsequent events including proceedings of the State Government, orders passed by it, decisions/orders passed by this Court etc., all of which have a bearing/impact on the rights and contentions of the appellants, which have obviously not been considered by the learned Single Judge and consequently, it is necessary that even the said subsequent events, orders, decisions etc., would have to be considered while adjudicating upon the dispute in controversy between the parties”