Power To Decide Applications For School Upgradation Is A "Public Power" Vested With State For Effectuating A Public Purpose: Karnataka High Court
Such power must be exercised in a time bound manner, Court added.
The Karnataka High Court has said that applications filed before authorities seeking approval for upgradation of the schools should be decided in a time bound manner as the applications are filed for specific academic year and if the decision making authorities take too long a time for disposing of the applications, the academic year itself would have been over rendering the...
The Karnataka High Court has said that applications filed before authorities seeking approval for upgradation of the schools should be decided in a time bound manner as the applications are filed for specific academic year and if the decision making authorities take too long a time for disposing of the applications, the academic year itself would have been over rendering the applications irrelevant or infructuous.
A single judge bench of Justice P Krishna Bhat said,
"The power vesting with the respondents (authorities) to consider and dispose of an application seeking upgradation of the school is coupled with a duty. Such a duty should be discharged by the respondents in a transparent and reasonable manner. Transparency is achieved by giving reasons for the final decision taken by the respondents. Reasonableness is assured by the respondents by affording opportunities to applicants to rectify the deficiencies if any noticed during the inspection of the Institution as per the Rules."
Further the court said, "Assigning reasons for refusal of permission would help the petitioner (schools) to fulfil the deficiencies so that when they make a fresh application, they could do so in a proper manner in order to be successful during the next time. Even otherwise, the public authorities vested with public powers are expected to exercise such powers in a reasonable manner which includes taking decisions within a reasonable time and also the concomitant duty demands that the authorities give proper reasons for their decisions."
The observation was made while hearing a petition filed by We Care Charitable Trust, challenging an order seeking to quash two orders passed in the year 2019, 2021 refusing permission to the trust to upgrade its existing school by starting classes for 9th and 10th standards.
The bench in its order said,
"Large number of litigations are coming up before this Court alleging failure on the part of respondents to consider the applications seeking approval for upgradation of the schools advancing two contentions; namely, such applications are not disposed of within a time bound manner and such applications are disposed of without giving proper and intelligible reasons."
Further it said, "The Institutions which want to upgrade their schools make necessary applications by paying the requisite fee to the respondents. The decision making power on such applications is with the respondents. Such power is a public power and it is vested with the respondents for effectuating a public purpose."
Referring to Article 21A of the Constitution of India—Right to Education, the bench said,
"It is a fundamental right of every child born in this country to have free and compulsory education upto the age of fourteen and therefore, a corresponding duty is enjoined upon the State through the respondents to ensure the creation of large number of schools for providing universal education to children upto the age of fourteen. This is a public duty commanded by the Constitution on the State and its subordinate officials."
It added, "Due to lack of sufficient resources, the State itself is not in a position to open sufficient numbers of schools for universalising primary and secondary education. It is therefore necessary that private players should be permitted to open schools to cater to a large number of students throughout the State."
It opined, "Once the application is made by the managements the respondents are required to make an inspection as per the Rules and give opportunity to the managements to rectify any defects found during such inspection and thereafter, the application should be finalised. In the entire process of consideration of the application respondents are required to act in a reasonable, just and fair manner."
Fresh Application seeking permission made by Petitioner
During the hearing Advocate M.P.Srikanth informed the court that the petitioner has already filed a fresh application seeking permission from the respondents to upgrade the school by starting classes for 9th and 10th standard for the academic year 2022-2023 and suitable direction may be issued by this court to consider the same and dispose it of within a reasonable time.
Following which it directed, "The application filed by the petitioner seeking upgradation of the school by starting classes for Standards 9th and 10th for the academic year 2022-2023 shall be considered and disposed of by the respondents within a total period of six weeks from today."
Further, the Three Member Committee while making its visit for the purpose of inspection shall point out the deficiencies noted to the petitioner during the inspection itself in writing. The respondents while examining the case of the petitioner for upgradation of the school on the basis of report of Three Members Committee or on their own notice any deficiencies in the institution for the purpose of upgradation shall inform the petitioner in writing about the same. A week's time may be given to the petitioner to offer its explanation on the said application.
Moreover, within two weeks of receiving such explanation from the petitioner, respondents shall take a decision on the application filed for seeking upgradation of the school for the academic year 2022-2023 and communicate such decision immediately thereafter to the petitioner. Reasons shall be given by the respondents for the decision taken by them either granting or refusing to grant permission for upgradation of the school.
Case Title: WE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1682/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
Date of Order: 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022.
Appearance: Advocate SRIKANTH M P for petitioner; AGA B.V. KRISHNA, FOR R-1 TO R-5