[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Vishwa Vijaya Vidya Samsthe vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
WP No. 36091 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 36091 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
VISHWA VIJAYA VIDYA SAMSTHE
(EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
REGISTERED UNDER THE ACT)
PWD ROAD, SRI SUBRAMANYA NAGAR,
TURUVEKERE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SMT. S. VIAYALAKSHMI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H V PRAVEEN GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
Court of
Karnataka GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
WP No. 36091 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
SECONDARY EDUCATION
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
TUMAKURU SOUTH DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU-572101
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TURUVEKERE- 572227
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.MANJUNATH., HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 04.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4, VIDE ANNEXURE-R1 AND TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED: 17.11.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE - 'R2 ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
WP No. 36091 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a) Issue Writ of Certiorari, Quashing the
endorsement dated: 04.11.2025 issued by the
Respondent No.4, Vide Annexure-'R1'.
b) Issue Writ of Certiorari, Quashing the
endorsement dated: 17.11.2025 issued by the 4th
respondent vide Annexure - 'R2'.
c) Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.4
to Renew Permission to the Petitioner Institution to
impart education for Standards IX and X by
considering Application at Annexure - 'Q'.
d) Pass any such other appropriate order or direction
as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and
equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned HCCP for the respondents and perused the material on
record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate
the various contentions urged in the petition and invite my
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
HC-KAR
attention to the earlier round of litigation in relation to the
petitioner's institution in W.P.No.12026/2023 which was
disposed of on 04.07.2023 in order to contend that despite the
directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition
upholding the claim of the petitioner for renewal of recognition
for classes IX and X in the petitioner's institution, the
respondents have once again issued the impugned
endorsements rejecting the request of the petitioner by
insisting upon documents which were already produced by the
petitioner and upheld by this Court in the aforesaid order and
as such, the impugned endorsements at Annexures-R1 and R2
deserve to be quashed and the respondents be directed to
renew the recognition in favour of the petitioner within a
stipulated time frame.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that if the
petitioner appears before respondent No.4 and once again
submits all relevant documents including the aforesaid order
passed by this Court in W.P.No.12026/2023 dated 04.07.2023,
respondent No.4 would reconsider the claim of the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
HC-KAR
for renewal of recognition for classes IX & X and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. In the earlier round of litigation in
W.P.No.12026/2023 dated 04.07.2023, this Court passed the
following order:
"The captioned Writ Petition is filed by the
Petitioner-Society seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Quash the endorsement bearing
No.Anu5:KHA.PRA.SHA.NON: 58/2022-23
dated 11.05.2023 issued by the 4th
respondent vide Annexure-X
(b) Quash the endorsement bearing
No.46/2021-22/816 dated 20.06.2022 issued
by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-R.
(c) Further direct the respondent No.4 to
register Standards IX and X in the institution
run by the petitioner management.
(d) Pass any such other appropriate
order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case
in the ends of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner-Society is a registered
Society under the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act, 1960. The Society at present is
running a School for Standards one to five in
Kannada medium and the same was upgraded to
Standard 6th and 7th during the year 2016.
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
HC-KAR
Recognition of the Institution is renewed till 2026-
2027. The Petitioner-Society passed a Resolution on
06.11.2021 and thereafter, resolved to upgrade the
Institution and in order to provide Class IX and X to
the Institution, an application was moved online to
the Respondent-Authorities. The Petitioner-Society
has knocked the doors of this Court alleging that
though the Institution has met all the requirements,
the 4th Respondent has rejected the proposal
submitted by the petitioner on the premise that the
land conversion for educational purpose is not
furnished, teaching aids are found to be in-sufficient
and High School section is not having permanent
drinking water facility. The proposal is also rejected
on the ground that the Petitioner-Institution does not
possess adequate land.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned AGA appearing for the
respondents.
4. Perused the material placed on record
along with the writ petition. In so far as the land
conversion requirement is concerned, I would find
that Respondent No.4 has ignored the judgment
rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.105637 of
2022, which is placed on record along with the writ
petition, which is marked at Annexure-W. This Court
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
HC-KAR
while allowing the writ petition held that there is no
requirement to obtain permission under Section 95
of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The
observations are made by this Court in the light of
the fact that the land was found to be situated within
the jurisdiction of the Corporation limits and
therefore, the Co-ordinate Bench was of the view
that the Karnataka Land Revenue Act ceases to apply
to such land, which would fall within the jurisdiction
of the Corporation limits. Therefore, I am of the
view that Respondent No.4 cannot insist for land
conversion for educational purpose.
The second major objection raised by
Respondent No.4 is that the Petitioner-Institution
does not possess adequate land to seek up-
gradation. This objection is countered by the
Petitioner-Trust by placing reliance on 2 nd Proviso to
Amended Rule 5. The Proviso to Amended Rule 5
exempts the extent of land indicated in Amended
Rule 5 in so far as existing educational institutions
are concerned.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to
the Amended Rule 5. The Proviso to Amended Rule
5 clearly excludes existing educational institution and
therefore, the additional requirement to possess the
prescribed extent of land as indicated in the
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
HC-KAR
Amended Rule 5 is not applicable to existing
Institution. Therefore, the objections in regard to
adequate land is also liable to be over-ruled.
6. In so far as the other deficiencies are
concerned, the Respondent No.4 has not followed the
mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 31
of Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Sub-clause 3(b) of
Section 31 of the said Act provides an opportunity to
the intending Institution to rectify the deficiencies
indicated by the Authorities. In the present case on
hand, Respondent No.4 has further arbitrarily
proceeded to reject the application on the premise
that proposal of the Institution seeking up-gradation
has lot of deficiencies. If the Authorities have found
deficiencies in the proposal, then it is the bounden
duty to extend time for complying and rectifying the
deficiencies. Even on this ground, the impugned
order vide Annexure-X is not sustainable and the
same is liable to be quashed. The deficiencies
relating to teaching aids and also providing drinking
water facility can be rectified by the Institution.
The learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner-Trust submits even these two deficiencies
indicated in the impugned order are infact not
existing.
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
HC-KAR
7. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the
view that Respondent No.4 without affording any
opportunity to the petitioner and in gross violation of
the principles of natural justice has proceeded to
reject the proposal, which is prima-facie found to be
in contravention of Sub-clause 3(b) of Section 31 of
Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The deficiencies
indicated in regard to the conversion is also found to
be contrary to the judgment rendered by the Co-
ordinate Bench vide Annexure-W. The requirement
of land is also found to be contrary to Proviso
Amended Rule 5 of
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Re
gulation and Prescription of Curricular, etc.) Rules,
2018.
8. In the light of the discussion made supra,
I am of the view that the proposal rejected by
Respondent No.4 has to be treated as pending
application and after spot inspection, Respondent
No.4 shall proceed to pass fresh orders on the
proposal submitted by the petitioner. This exercise
shall be completed within a period of three weeks.
The spot inspection, if done by the concerned
Authority shall be confined to the deficiencies
relating to teaching aids and permanent drinking
water facility."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
HC-KAR
6. As can be seen from the aforesaid order passed by
this Court, the contention of the respondents that relevant
documents relating to conversion of land had not been
produced was rejected by this Court, which upheld the claim of
the petitioner that the petitioner's institution was running a
school in a converted land in accordance with law and
conversion order passed was produced by the petitioner.
7. Under these circumstances, I deem it is just and
appropriate to set aside the impugned endorsements at
Anneures-R1 and R2 and remit the matter back to respondent
No.4 for reconsideration afresh by issuing certain directions.
8. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsements at Annexure-R1
dated 04.11.2025 and Annexure-R2 dated
17.11.2025 issued by respondent No.4 are
hereby set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent
No.4 for reconsideration afresh in accordance
with law.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49837
HC-KAR
iv) Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.4
on 08.12.2025.
v) On that day, the petitioner shall once again
submit all relevant documents as well as the
order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.12026/2023 dated 04.07.2023.
vi) Respondent No.4 shall reconsider the renewal
application filed by the petitioner for renewal of
recognition for classes IX and X bearing in
mind the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.12026/2023 dated 04.07.2023 and
take appropriate decision/pass appropriate
orders within a period of two weeks from
08.12.2025.
vii) Respondent No.4 shall not raise any other
objection other than the documents referred to
in Annexure-R1.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
VM
