Karnataka High Court

The Al Jamia Mohamadiyah Education ... vs State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2025

Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad

Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad

                                       -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:18636
                                                   WP No. 15588 of 2025


               HC-KAR



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                    BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 15588 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
               BETWEEN:

                    THE AL JAMIA MOHAMADIYAH
                    EDUCATION SOCIETY
                    HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.6/A
                    HAZRAT TERRACE ANNEXE
                    SHAIKH HAFIUDDIN MARG
                    MUMBAI-400008.

                    ALSO AT

                    THE AL-JAMIA MOHAMADIYAH
                    EDUCATION SOCITY
                    THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
                    R.K. HEGDE NAGAR,
Digitally
signed by           BENGALURU-560077
VANAMALA
N                   REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Location:
High Court          OFFICER-MR. KHALID MUSHARRUF,
of Karnataka
                    S/O R.ABDUL JALEEL,
                    AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                                                ...PETITIONER
               (BY SRI. V. B. SHIVAKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                     REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                      -2-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:18636
                                WP No. 15588 of 2025


HC-KAR




     DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
     M.S. BUILDING,
     DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560001.

2.   THE COMMISSIONER,
     PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560001.

3.   DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADM),
     DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
     BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT,
     KALASIPALYA,
     BENGALURU-560002.
                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)


     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE 14.05.2025 BEARING NO. A8(ANU4)W.P. NO.

30975 OF 2024/39/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE THIRD

RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL

EDUCATION,    BENGALURU    SOUTH     DISTRICT,

BENGALURU-560002    (ANNEXURE-A)    WHICH     IS

ISSUED CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED

BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO. 30975/2024
                              -3-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:18636
                                            WP No. 15588 of 2025


HC-KAR




(EDN-RES)        DATED    06.02.2025        (ANNEXURE-J);

QUASH THE 26.05.2025 BEARING NO. A8(ANU4)

W.P. NO. 30975 OF 2024/39/2024-25 ISSUED BY

THE THIRD RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

SCHOOL       EDUCATION,            BENGALURU        SOUTH

DISTRICT,        BENGALURU-560002           (ANNEXURE-N)

WHICH IS ISSUED CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTIONS

ISSUED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO.

30975/2024         (EDN-RES)        DATED      06.02.2025

(ANNEXURE-J); DIRECT THE THIRD RESPONDENT

AUTHORITY NOT TO INTERFERE OR DISTURB THE

WORKING      OF     THE      PETITIONER      INSTITUTION

WHICH       IS     RUNNING          ITS     EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTION FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS.


     THIS        PETITION,         COMING      ON     FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS

MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
                           -4-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:18636
                                        WP No. 15588 of 2025


HC-KAR




                    ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is a Society registered under the

provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 [for

the State of Maharashtra], and admittedly, the

petitioner has been granted recognition by the

respondents to run an English Medium School for the

first to tenth standards, and the recent renewal of

such recognition is from the years 2023-24 to 2027-

28 [as per Annexure-M18]. The petitioner is aggrieved

by the third respondent's Notice dated 14.05.2025

[Annexure-A].

2. The third respondent has issued this

notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause

against withdrawal of the recognition in exercise of

the powers under the provisions of Section 39[1][c] of

the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 [for short, 'the

Education Act']. The third respondent has referred to

certain specific instances [including the possible cloud

over the petitioner's title to the property where the

NC: 2025:KHC:18636

HC-KAR

School is situated] to justify the allegation that the

petitioner has misled the Department/the Public/the

Parents/Pupil and therefore the recognition must be

withdrawn. The petitioner has caused reply to such

show cause notice, and it is now placed on record in

unison that the third respondent has taken a

decision on 30.05.2025 to cancel the petitioner's

recognition under the provisions of Sections 34 and

39 of the Education Act.

3. Sri V B Shivakumar, the learned counsel

for the petitioner, submits that the third respondent

has come under pressure from the rival claimants to

the subject property, who have indented upon certain

Associations which promote and protect the local

language of the State. In elaboration, the learned

counsel submits that:

[a] the petitioner's school in Bengaluru [the

subject matter of the dispute] is situated in a

property that is transferred by way of gift by

NC: 2025:KHC:18636

HC-KAR

Mohammed Azeezuddin, but his children

have filed a collusive suit for declaration in

O.S. No.4910/2021;

[b] the petitioner has challenged this collusive

Judgment and decree in O.S.

No.25314/2024;

[c] the persons who have thus initiated the

proceedings have also tried to coerce the

petitioner in filing the writ petition in W.P.

No.30975/2024 seeking directions to the

Authorities to dispose of their complaints;

[d] this Court has disposed of the writ petition

on 06.02.2025 observing that this

complainant has not established a legal

right to be entitled for a writ of mandamus.

4. As regards the discrepancies that are

mentioned in the impugned Show Cause Notice and

the Order dated 30.05.2025, Sri V B Shivakumar

submits that these are certain bona fide

NC: 2025:KHC:18636

HC-KAR

typographical errors in describing the petitioner in

certain communication, but those errors do not

justify the extreme consequence of withdrawal of

recognition. The learned counsel proposes to

emphasize that if the impugned Show Cause Notice is

vitiated, the order dated 30.05.2025 to cancel the

petitioner's recognition under the provisions of

Sections 34 and 39 of the Education Act must also

fail.

5. However, the learned counsel cannot

dispute that the petitioner has an alternative remedy

under Section 130 of the Education Act and the

Appellate Authority can verify each of the

circumstances to redress the petitioner's grievance.

This takes this Court to the next question viz., the

interim arrangement that must be with the petition

being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail

the appellate remedy as against the order dated

30.05.2025.

NC: 2025:KHC:18636

HC-KAR

6. Sri V B Shivakumar submits that there

are more than 1,500 students enrolled with the

petitioner and the recognition but for the present

proceedings would be valid until completion of the

academic year 2027-28 and that there are no

allegations insofar as the compliance with the

curriculum or the infrastructure that must be in

place.

7. Smt Sukanya Baliga, the learned

Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light

of these assertions as is Smt. P Varalakshmi Nagaraj,

the learned counsel who states that she has entered

caveat on behalf of the complainant and that the

present proceedings are at this complainant's

instance. These learned counsel submit that there

are multiple proceedings, including criminal

proceedings and therefore, this Court may not grant

any indulgence.

NC: 2025:KHC:18636

HC-KAR

8. At this stage, when the Appellate

Authority, at the petitioner's instance, must examine

the merits of the Order dated 30.05.2025, this Court

must consider the following circumstances. The

consequence of withdrawal of recognition is an

extreme action especially when it is not disputed that

the petitioner's school is functioning for over decades

and possesses recognition that is valid for the next

three academic years. Further, it is not seriously

disputed that this School has more than 1,500

students on its rolls.

9. The Appellate Authority will have to

examine, amongst others, the afore circumstances

and whether indeed it could be said that the

petitioner has no interest in the property where the

School building is situated when a civil dispute is

pending consideration. This Court is also of the

opinion that, with the allegation that the third

respondent is brought under duress after failed

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18636

HC-KAR

efforts in the earlier civil proceedings and the writ

petition in W.P. No.30975/2024, the petitioner's

school cannot be shut down exposing the students to

uncertainty unless a very strong case is established.

The Appellate Authority will have to holistically

consider all the circumstances for the final outcome

and also the interim arrangement so that such

decision dispels all apprehension of extraneous

considerations. As such, the following:

ORDER

[A] The petition stands disposed of

reserving liberty to the petitioner to

avail appellate remedy under Section

130 of the Education Act as against

the Order dated 30.05.2025 within

the next four [4] weeks from today.

[B] The operation of the Order dated

30.05.2025 is stayed observing that

all questions must be thoroughly

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18636

HC-KAR

examined by the Appellate Authority

if the petitioner avails such remedy

in terms of the liberty reserved.

[C] This order staying the operation of

the order dated 30.05.2025 shall be

in force till the disposal of the appeal