Sri Vinayaka Education Society ... vs The Government Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1407 Kant

                          -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                           AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

          WRIT APPEAL No.187/2020 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI VINAYAKA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
M. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. MALIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SIDDARAMANAGARA,
HOSADURGA TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.             ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
       EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
       (SECONDARY EDUCATION)
       MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     THE COMMISSIONER,
       DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
       NEW PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
       K.R. CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27/01/2020 PASSED IN
W.P.NO.7444/2016 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION AS PRAYED FOR WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.
                             -2-



      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                     JUDGMENT

The appellant is an education society represented by

its Secretary who has assailed order dated 27/01/2020,

passed in W.P.No.7444/2016. By the said order, learned

single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground

of locus standi by holding that the appellant/writ petitioner

had no locus standi to file the writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India so as to assail the orders

dated 19/01/2016, passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure

- K) and consequential memorandum dated 25/01/2016

issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure - M) concerning the

alleged misconduct of Sri M.Shivalingappa, Head Master;

Smt. R.S.Renuka, Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Sri Vinayaka

Composite Junior College (High School Section), Malali,

Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District in connection with a

Lokayuktha trap case.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the

appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for

respondent Nos.1 and 2, who has appeared on advance

notice and perused the material on record.

3. Admittedly, Annexures "K" and "M" have been

issued as against the aforesaid two persons namely Sri M.

Shivalingappa and Smt. R.S.Renuka. If at all they were

aggrieved by the said orders, it was they, who had locus

standi to assail the same in accordance with law. The

petitioner herein is an educational society.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ

petitioner submitted that since the two persons against

whom the impugned orders were passed are the

employees of the appellant/society and they had acted in

accordance with the directions issued by the

appellant/society, the writ petitions were filed assailing the

orders issued against the aforesaid two persons by the

petitioner/society. He contended that the learned single

Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition on the

ground of locus standi.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate who appeared on advance notice contended that

the impugned order would not call for any interference in

this appeal.

6. We are in agreement with the order of the

learned single Judge.

7. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal

by reserving liberty to Sri M.Shivalingappa and Smt. R.S.

Renuka to assail the orders Annexures - "K" and "M" if

they are so aggrieved and are so advised.

8. It is needless to observe that if any such

challenge is made to the said orders at Annexures - "K"

and "M", the dismissal of the writ petition filed by appellant

herein would not come in the way of such a challenge.

9. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Consequently, I.A.No.1/2020 also stands disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE S*