Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 57 (KAR)

Indus Trust Billapura Cross, Sarjapur Bengaluru v. Amitha Srinivas D/o Srinivas

2018-01-08

H.G.RAMESH, P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. These writ appeals are directed against the common interim order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.44814–44818/2017 directing the appellant to admit writ petitioners in it’s school. 2. We have heard Shri S. Vijayashankar, learned Senior Counsel for appellant and Shri R. Ganesh Kumar, learned Counsel for Caveator/respondents No.1 to 5 and Shri A.S. Ponnanna, Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.6 to 8. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the writ petitions. 4. Petitioners before the Hon’ble Single Judge were granted seats in the school run by respondent-Trust under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’ for short). The school run by respondent-Trust did not admit them. Therefore, they approached this Court with the instant writ petitions. 5. The Hon’ble Single Judge, by the order impugned has directed the respondent-Trust to admit petitioners subject to the result of the writ petitions. 6. Assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order, Shri Vijayashankar, argued that the school falls under the definition of ‘Minority Institution’ as it is run by a Trust belonging to members of linguistic minority. This Court in Writ Appeal No.5427/2017 filed by the respondent-Trust, has stayed the operation of the order dated 7.8.2017 in Writ Petition No.8358/2017 and the operation of the Government Order dated 18.6.2014. Therefore, the respondent-Trust cannot be compelled to admit petitioners in it’s school. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned order. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. The sheet anchor of appellant’s case is that, the School in question is run by a Trust, in which, majority number of Trustees belong to linguistic minority. Therefore, the School is entitled for the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court, staying the Government Order dated 18.6.2014, requiring minority Institutions to admit 25% seats under the RTE Act. 10. On facts, the Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded a finding that the respondent-Trust has not established that it has been granted ‘minority status’. Therefore, the School is entitled for the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court, staying the Government Order dated 18.6.2014, requiring minority Institutions to admit 25% seats under the RTE Act. 10. On facts, the Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded a finding that the respondent-Trust has not established that it has been granted ‘minority status’. In the circumstances, we are of the view that, unless, the School demonstrates that, it is a minority Institution, it shall not be entitled for the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court, staying the operation of the Government Order dated 18.6.2014. Hence, we see no error in the order impugned. 11. Resultantly, these appeals must fail and are accordingly dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of these appeals, I.A.2/2017 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Appeals dismissed. We make no order as to costs.