H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner-Society has sought for quashing of the order bearing No. TEL. DIET/cls/88-89, dated 2-5-1989, whereby the opposite parties have withdrawn the recognition of the institution i. e. , the Teachers Training Institute (Al-Ameen progressive Teachers Training Institute) Azama Nagar, belgaum and has derecognised it. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is that the petitioner-Society has been running the Teachers Training Institute under the name and style "al-Ameen Progressive Teachers Training Institute" at azama Nagar, Belgaum. This institute according to petitioner's case was started in 1986 and according to petitioner's case, the institute was granted necessary recognition. The petitioner's case is that respondent 2 under the instruction of respondent 1 issued show-cause notice Annexure-C why the recognition should not be withdrawn in respect of the said institute. The petitioner's case is in reply to that notice, he submitted annexure-D and thereafter respondent 2 by its order dated 2-5-1989 withdrew the recognition. The copy of the order dated 2-5-1989 has been annexed as Annexure-E. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's institution is a non-aided minority institution. According to petitioner as per Annexure-A, issued from the Office of the Chairman of the State Minorities commission, the petitioner was recognised as the religious linguistic minority. The petitioner's case is that petitionerinstituti on being non-aided institution, the Grant-in-Aid Code and provisions of grant and other instructions issued by respondents 1 and 2 were not applicable. The petitioner's further case is that this order is contrary to the provisions and it is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order Annexure-E on the ground that it is contrary to the Grant-in-Aid Code as necessary requirement of proviso to Rule 39 of Grant-in-Aid, Code were not complied with by the authorities and as such, the basic condition precedent for exercise of that power had not been in existence. ( 3 ) NO counter-affidavit has been filed in this petition. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K. S. Vidyavathi and Smt. L. Y. Premavathi, learned Government advocate for the opposite party. ( 3 ) NO counter-affidavit has been filed in this petition. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K. S. Vidyavathi and Smt. L. Y. Premavathi, learned Government advocate for the opposite party. ( 5 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-Institution being minority institution, the petitioner had a right to establish the institution and to administer it and the impugned order clearly contravenes the provisions of Article 30 of the constitution of India. It has further been contended that apart from that the order impugned withdrawing the recognition was mala fide and arbitrary and had been passed without due compliance of requirement of proviso to Rule 39 and as the compliance with the requirement of the proviso has not been made, it has been contended by Smt. K. S. Vidyavathi, that sine qua non for exercise of power to cancel or withdraw the recognition did not exist and so order of withdrawal of recognition was illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the opposite parties, Smt. L. Y. Premavathi,learned Government Advocate, contended that right under article 30, to establish and administer the petitioner-Institution no doubt is there in the minority communities, but that right is subject to regulatory powers of the State and the order impugned does not interfere with the right of establishment and administration of the institution. That right of recognition cannot be termed as a fundamental right. Recognition can be granted subject to certain conditions and right of administration does not confer a right of mal-administration in the sense that an institution whether minority or majority can be administered in:a manner that may run counter or contrary to the basic goal provided in the Constitution of improving the dignity of individual. It is submitted for maintaining the standards of education also and with relation to maintenance of the standard of teachings, keeping pace with the constitutional provisions and the guidelines provided, it is within the power of the State to put conditions when granting recognition and if those conditions are not fulfilled, recognition may be withdrawn. She further submitted that in this case Annexure-E will firstly show that petitioner was given opportunity to show-cause or to rectify the mistake before the order of withdrawal of recognition was passed. She further submitted that in this case Annexure-E will firstly show that petitioner was given opportunity to show-cause or to rectify the mistake before the order of withdrawal of recognition was passed. The petitioner submitted his reply and after having considered that representation, the authorities passed the order, and it cannot be said that petitioner was not given an opportunity before withdrawal of recognition. The learned government Advocate, Smt. L. Y. Premavathi, submitted that the present writ petition is without force and deserves to be dismissed. ( 7 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. In the case of Unni Krishnan, j. P. v State of Andhra Pradesh, it has been observed at paragraph 169 as under: "we must, however, make it clear, and which is of crucial importance herein, that the right to establish an educational institution does not carry with it the right to recognition or the right to affiliation. In The Ahmedabad st. Xaviers College Society and Another v State of Gujarat and Another, it has been held uniformly by all the nine learned Judges that there is no fundamental right to affiliation. Ray, C. J. , stated that this has been "the consistent view of this Court". They also recognised that recognition or affiliation is essential for a meaningful exercise of the right to establish and administer educational institutions. Recognition may be granted either by the Government or any other authority or body empowered to accord recognition. Similarly, affiliation may be granted either by the University or any other academic or other body empowered to grant affiliation to other educational institutions. In other words, it is open to a person to establish an educational institution, admit students, impart education, conduct examination and award certificates to them. But he, or the educational institution, has no right to insist that the certificates or degrees (if they can be called as such) awarded by such institution should be recognised by the State much less have they the right to say that the students trained by the institution should be admitted to examinations conducted by the University or by the Government or any other authority, as the case may be. The institution has to seek such recognition or affiliation from the appropriate agency. Grant of recognition and/or affiliation is not a matter of course nor is it a formality". The institution has to seek such recognition or affiliation from the appropriate agency. Grant of recognition and/or affiliation is not a matter of course nor is it a formality". The above observations clearly clarify the position that establishment and administration of educational institution no doubt may be the right, but recognition or affiliation is not a fundamental right. Anyway, I do not want to proceed further with this point except pointing out that recognition or affiliation is not a fundamental right. Recognition is always subject to the provisions of law and conditions incorporated in that regard. ( 8 ) POWER to grant recognition had been with the authorities under the Grant-in-Aid Code earlier and now it is subject-matter of the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act and is subject to the conditions prescribed. When recognition is granted subject to certain conditions to be fulfilled, it may be cancelled in case those conditions are not fulfilled. Under the Grant-in-Aid Code there has been a provision for withdrawal of recognition i. e. , rule 39 of the Grant-in-Aid Code, the material provision thereof reads as under: "39. Withdrawal of recognition. Recognition granted to any institution may at any time be withdrawn by the director, if any of the conditions of recognition are not observed or are violated or if the standard of instruction imparted is in the opinion of the Inspecting Officer found to be not satisfactory or for any other valid reasons. Where an institution is mismanaged and the departmental rules are violated, the Director after due enquiry, may declare the management as unfit to run the institution. Thereupon, unless the managing body is reconstituted, and the affairs are set right, the recognition shall not be continued: provided that due warning has been given to the management and reasonable time allowed to rectify the defects pointed out/to carry out the instructions of the department: provided further that an institution which is aggrieved by the decision on withdrawal of recognition may submit an appeal to Government within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of communication of the withdrawal of recognition. The decision of Government thereon shall be final". ( 9 ) A reading of the rule along with the proviso firstly reveals as to when and in what conditions and in what manner the recognition can be withdrawn or cancelled. The decision of Government thereon shall be final". ( 9 ) A reading of the rule along with the proviso firstly reveals as to when and in what conditions and in what manner the recognition can be withdrawn or cancelled. The first condition is that there appears failure to observe the conditions of recognition on the part of the institution or that there has been violation of those conditions or in the opinion of the Inspecting officer it is found that the standard of instruction imparted is not satisfactory or for any other valid reasons like these, that the recognition may be withdrawn. But before the exercise of that power two further conditions are provided. First is that if the deficiency are like that as mentioned above, due warning has to be issued by the Director to the management in that regard pointing out the deficiencies and that reasonable time should be given as required by first proviso to the management to rectify the defect pointed out and to carry out the instructions of the department. If these two conditions are found to exist and it is found that the rules have been violated and there is mismanagement, then Director may start due enquiry which may include issue of notice to show-cause and enquiry and thereafter if it is found that defects have not been removed and they continue and no proper cause has been shown in spite of notice under the proviso having been given, the Director may after conclusion of the enquiry withdraw the recognition and derecognition is to be continued till the management committee is reconstituted and affairs are set right. So sine qua non for exercise of that power are the two conditions that is the deficiencies in the compliance of the conditions or breach of conditions and giving of opportunity to the management to rectify those defects and failure of the management of the institution to comply with the notice, required to be given under proviso i. e. , giving opportunity to rectify the defect. If either of the conditions are wanting then in that case, it will amount that conditions for exercise of power under Rule 39 did not exist and sine qua non for exercise of power did not exist, and the exercise of power would be nullity. If either of the conditions are wanting then in that case, it will amount that conditions for exercise of power under Rule 39 did not exist and sine qua non for exercise of power did not exist, and the exercise of power would be nullity. It is well-settled principle of law when the power is given and the manner is provided and conditions are provided in which that power can be exercised, the power has got to be exercised in that manner and not otherwise. When i take this view that compliance with proviso is one of the conditions of sine qua non for exercise of power under Rule 39 (a), i find support from the decision of this Court in the case of gandhi Vidya Shala Educational Trust v State of Karnataka and Others. No doubt, Annexure-C is the notice issued to the petitioner as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate. But this notice may be said to have been issued in the process of action being taken by the opposite party calling upon the petitioner to show-cause. But that is not going to rectify the defect of non-compliance with the requirement of proviso to Rule 39 and therefore the order impugned is firstly illegal and bad. Hon'ble Venkatachala, dealing with this very provision in gandhi Vidya Shala Educational Trust's case, supra, has been pleased to observe as under:"the provision in sub-rule (a) of Rule 39 of the Code empowering the Designated Officer of the State government to make a decision withdrawing recognition granted to the Teachers Training Institutions, if exercised, would bring about serious civil consequences upon the institutions, is undisputed. Such power is made exercisable by the Designated Officer subject to the condition of his giving to the management of the institution concerned, a fore-warning and reasonable time to rectify the pointed out defects or given departmental instructions as contained in the first proviso to that sub-rule, is a procedural safeguard incorporated in the rule obviously to obviate the exercise of power by the Designated Officer arbitrarily or whimsically or capriciously without giving thought to the consequences which may ensue by making a decision in the matter of withdrawal of recognition granted to such institutions, and saving the power of withdrawal exercisable by the designated Officer from the challenge of being violative of article 14 of the Constitution. If that is the purpose sought to be achieved by the proviso, compliance with the proviso necessarily becomes a condition precedent for exercise of the power of withdrawal by the Designated Officer and its breach would render the decision of withdrawal of the designated Officer a nullity. Hence, it has to be held that non-compliance with the requirement of the first proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 39 of the Code as a condition precedent before issue of the impugned official memoranda under that sub-rule, has rendered the official memoranda a nullity, even if it is assumed that he had the power of withdrawal under the sub-rule". ( 10 ) MEETING out the arguments of issue of show-cause notice that once show-cause notice has been issued there remains no substance in the arguments about non-compliance with the proviso to Rule 39, Hon'ble Venkatachala, has considered this and observed as under:"hence, the submission made on behalf of the commissioner that non-compliance with the requirement of the first proviso a non-statutory rule, will not affect the withdrawal of recognition granted to the petitioners-Institutions by issue of the impugned official memoranda, cannot succeed. So also, the other submission made on behalf of the Commissioner that issue of show-cause notices to the petitioners-Institutions calling upon them to show-cause within 15 days therefrom as to why the recognition granted to them should not be withdrawn, since satisfies the requirement relating to observance of principle of natural justice relating to affording of an opportunity before taking a prejudicial action against a party, the non-observance of the requirement of the first proviso cannot vitiate the action of the Commissioner in issuing the official memoranda, cannot be of any assistance in sustaining the official memoranda. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in ramana Dayaram Shetty v International Airport Authority of India and Others, an Executive Authority must be rigorously hold to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. Such standards in the instant cases being one imposed on the Designated Officer under the first proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 39, action taken in violation thereof has resulted in invalidation of its action, namely, issuance of the official memoranda. Thus, this point has to be held in favour of the petitioners-institutions and against the respondents". Such standards in the instant cases being one imposed on the Designated Officer under the first proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 39, action taken in violation thereof has resulted in invalidation of its action, namely, issuance of the official memoranda. Thus, this point has to be held in favour of the petitioners-institutions and against the respondents". ( 11 ) IN this view of the matter, in my opinion, fulfillment of the condition relating to compliance with first proviso to Rule 39 (a) as it then was, renders the order impugned contained in annexure-E to be invalid and null and void. Thus considered, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned is set aside on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of proviso to Rule 39. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is hereby allowed. The order impugned contained in Annexure-E dated 2-5-1989 is hereby quashed as being null and void and the petitioner-Institution would be deemed to be continuing with recognition, during the relevant of material period. It is hereby clarified that it is open to the opposite parties to take fresh action, if they so desire, but after due compliance of provisions of law. ( 13 ) SUBJECT to the above observation, the writ petition is allowed with costs. Smt. L. Y. Premavathi, learned High Court Government pleader is permitted to file her memo of appearance. --- *** --- .