Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 196 (KAR)

Seva Ashrama Trust Registered, Vishal Nagar, Old Hubli v. K. C. Kumar

2017-02-01

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, VINEET KOTHARI

body2017
ORDER : Mr. F. V. Patil, Adv. for the complainant. 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner/Seva Ashrama Trust for the alleged breach of the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.111924/2015 wherein the learned Single Judge had passed an interim order while issuing notice to the respondent in terms of “stay as prayed for”. 2. The petitioner had challenged in the aforesaid petition, the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government, Education Department(Secondary Education) by which, earlier transfer by A.P. Vidyavathi Trust, Ashokpuram, Bengaluru which was being run by the Administrative Board of the A.P. Proudashale, Ashokpuram, Bengaluru to the present petitioner namely Seva Ashrama Trust, Vishal Nagar, Old Hubli and the said transfer order was withdrawn by the said authorities of the Government by the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 at Annexure-L. 3. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner since the Under Secretary to Government, Education Department has now passed the order at Annexure-N dated 12.05.2016 by which the present petition has been called upon to get fresh registration in Form-9 under the provision of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and also get fresh recognition for the said school subject to that grant-in aid school is stopped by the said authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us submits that even while referring to the pendency of the said WP No.111924/2015 before this Court in the order or in the communication dated 12.05.2016, the said Under Secretary to Government, Education Department has conveniently omitted to mention anything about interim order granted by the learned single Judge dated 14.10.2015. In view of the same, he could not have even passed the order and communication dated 12.05.2016. Learned counsel brought to our notice Annexure-F communication dated 14.09.2015 issued by the Deputy Director (Administration), Department of Public Instruction, Dharwad. The petitioner/Institution recognition is already renewed from the year 2015-16 till 2019-20. Therefore, there was no occasion to the Under Secretary to the Government, who required the petitioner to obtain such recognition and registration afresh in Form-9 as stipulated in the communication dated 12.05.2016 at Annexure-N. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the communication dated 12.05.2016 does not amount to deliberate disobedience of the interim order dated 14.10.2015. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the communication dated 12.05.2016 does not amount to deliberate disobedience of the interim order dated 14.10.2015. The said communication dated 12.05.2016 apparently does not take note of the communication dated 14.09.2015 at Annexure-F issued by the Deputy Director as aforesaid. Upon the said communication being received by the petitioner, it was for the petitioner to bring this fact to the notice of the Under Secretary to the Government that the recognition of the petitioner school already stands renewed. Upon transfer of the school of the petitioner/Institution, the said letter dated 12.05.2016 merely requires the petitioner to obtain fresh registration and recognition to comply with the terms of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. It is for the petitioner to satisfy the concerned authority that either it is not required to be complied or it would so comply within given time in accordance with law. 6. Mere issuance of the said communication dated 12.05.2016, in our opinion, it is not breach of the interim order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court and it cannot constitute a civil contempt under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 7. Therefore, we are not inclined to initiate any contempt proceedings against the respondents in this regard, leaving it free for the petitioner to take appropriate legal remedy against the said impugned order dated 12.05.2016 in accordance with law. 8. The contempt petition therefore is dismissed.