M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a society registered under the Karnataka societies Registration Act, and is in existence since 1985. The society is having its head office at telagi. Basavana bagewadi taluk. The object of the petitioner-society is to start educational institutions in the rural areas to uplift the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The society decided to start a school at hanamapura village in basavana bagewadi taluk. There is no high school in the said village and 13 villages located around it or within a radius of 10 kilometres. Therefore, the society decided to start the high school therefor the welfare of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes. It is further asserted that hanamapura village is one of the rehabilitated centres on account of displacement of persons in connection with upper krishna project and therefore there is tremendous influx of population from outside. On 31-10-1985 the petitioner-society applied for permission to establish a high school for the academic year 1986-87. That was done pursuant to the applications invited by the deputy director of public instructions, bijapur, calling for such applications (3rd respondent herein ). However, the petitioner-society was informed that permission could not be granted in view of government's decision not to permit any more high schools. Such rejection is produced at annexurc 'a'. Similarly once again applications were invited by the 3rd respondent and petitioner-society again applied for permission 29-11-1986. That application was rejected inter alia, stating that the academic year had already started. That communication is dated 4-2-1988, which is produced at annexurc 'b'. The petitioner-society made one more application to start a high school during the academic year 1988-89, pursuant to notification issued by respondent 3. Petitioner-society with the help of local m. l. a. , approached the then chief minister requesting for grant of permission to start the high school. The chief minister took action and directed the secretary, department of education to grant permission for academic year 1988-89 and he also gave oral instructions in regard to the permission being granted. That is produced as anncxure 'c'. On the assurance of the chief minister the petitioner-society began a high school with effect from January 1988 with an admission of 40 students. That is produced as anncxure 'c'. On the assurance of the chief minister the petitioner-society began a high school with effect from January 1988 with an admission of 40 students. The secretary, department of education informed that there was already some delay in taking decision to accord permission to start the high school for the academie year 1988-89, and it was decided not to grant permission. A copy of the said communication dated 19/26-7-1988, is herewith produced as Annexure 'f'. Attempt made to secure permission was thwarted by respondent No. 3, for one or the other reason. The petitioner has pointed out, despite the policy decision taken not to permit any more high schools in the relevant academic year, permission was granted to start a high school at sasnoor in the same basavana bagewadi taluk vide order No. Ed/149/mhs-86, dated 26-8-1986, and another high school was permitted to be opened in kodoganur in muddebihal taluk, which is the neighbouring taluk. By another order dated 24-2-1987 a high school was permitted to be opened at yarnal village in basavana bagewadi taluk, and yet another high school was permitted to be opened at nagur village at hurgund taluk. It is with this grievance the petitioner-society has approached this court inter alia contending that the petitioner has been discriminated and the action in refusing permission on the ground that the academic year has started has resulted in hostile discrimination. While many other high schools had been permitted and orders made during and after commencement of the academic years in question. In that circumstances the petitioner has approached this court for issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to accord necessary permission to start the high school from the academic year 1988-89. After notice in the initial stages, the government pleader was directed to take notice for respondents and to make his submission. On 7-3-1989 rules was issued and the government pleader was directed to file statement of objections. Accordingly, the statement of objections has been filed. In the statement of objections it is averred that the petition is devoid of merits and the petitioner has started a high school without obtaining permission and therefore, the petitioner has acted illegally and that itself disentitled the petitioner to any relief from this court. Accordingly, the statement of objections has been filed. In the statement of objections it is averred that the petition is devoid of merits and the petitioner has started a high school without obtaining permission and therefore, the petitioner has acted illegally and that itself disentitled the petitioner to any relief from this court. It has been further asserted that permission to grant a high school may be granted only on certain conditions under the grant-in-aid code being satisfied. It is therefore, further asserted that the unauthorised commencement of the school disentitled the petitioner to the permission. In fact, reliance has been placed on a decision of this court reported in Satyanarayanaswami Education society v State of karnataka, \ 986 (2) kar. Law journal 72. Reliance is also placed on the policy not to allow any more high schools. The other averments not required to be noticed as they are not germane to the matter in issue. The petitioner has admitted that on the oral assurance given by the then chief minister it has admitted 40 students. The reason for refusing permission is not one of the reasons which are made out in the statement of objections as reproduced earlier. Reasons given for not granting permission was that the academic year had already commenced and therefore, permission was not granted. If application for permission to start for the next academic year was given it was also rejected on the ground that the academic year had already commenced. Though on the evidence of various annexures to the petition the policy of not permitting any more high schools is also not observed as evidenced by the permission granted in respect of other high schools in both bijapur and belgaum districts. In fact, notice was served on the respondent that schools had been permitted during the middle of the academic year in the neighbouring taluks, and another in the same taluk i. e. , basavana bagewadi. That is not denied. Thus this court should have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petitioner-society has been discriminated deliberately and that discrimination is sought to be sustained by various explanation post-facto in the statement of objections. I therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the respondents are guilty of discrimination and arbitrary action. That is not denied. Thus this court should have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petitioner-society has been discriminated deliberately and that discrimination is sought to be sustained by various explanation post-facto in the statement of objections. I therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the respondents are guilty of discrimination and arbitrary action. If similarly situated are dissimilarly treated it amounts to violation of constitutional rights of petitioner-society both under articles 14 and 19 of the constitution. The learned government pleader fairly conceded that the government order of rejection cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter the mandamus will issue directing respondents to grant permission to start a high school with effect from the academic year 1988-89. Rule issued is made absolule in terms above. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .