JUDGMENT : S.Sujatha, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondents. 2. The petitioner No.1 is the Gurukul and the petitioner Nos.2 to 45 are parents of the students studying in the Gurukul, run by the petitioner No.1. The petitioners have challenged the notice dated 13.02.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 at Annexure- A inter alia seeking a declaration that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 ['Act' for short] and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are not applicable to a Gurukul run by the petitioner No.1 where emphasis is given on religious instructions and further seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider the applications filed by the petitioner No.1 to grant permission to start new school [Annexure-F to F2]. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners restricts the claim to the prayer Nos.1 and 2 and fairly submits that the prayer No.3 does not survive for consideration at this stage. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the first petitioner Gurukul was started in the year 2006 by the devotees inspired by Paramahamsa Nithyananda to revive the unique ancient Vedic system of holistic education. In addition to the existing Gurukul, the petitioner No.1 decided to start a regular school and filed an application for registration and the same came to be rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 appears to have filed application seeking permission to start regular school for standard I to X. The second respondent has directed to close down the Gurukul and to shift the students of the school run by the petitioner No.1 without obtaining the requisite permission from the department, to any other authorized school within a period of seven days from the date of the receipt of the notice, failing which criminal action will be initiated in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Vinayaka.B, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Annexure-F series was filed by the petitioner No.1 by inadvertence in the name of Nithyananda Gurukula, Bidadi seeking permission to start the school from I to X standard. Noticing the same, subsequently appropriate application has been filed by the Nithyananda Vidyalaya seeking permission to start a new primary school by name Nithyananda Vidyalaya for the academic year 2018-19. Noticing the same, subsequently appropriate application has been filed by the Nithyananda Vidyalaya seeking permission to start a new primary school by name Nithyananda Vidyalaya for the academic year 2018-19. In view of the same, Annexures-F to F2 have become redundant and does not survive for consideration. In other words, the petitioners are not pressing the third relief sought in the writ petitions. 6. As regards the Gurukul run by the petitioner No.1, it is submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India and Another, (2012) 6 SCC 1 , where the institution predominantly provides religious instructions like Madrasas, Vedic Pathshalas etc. and do not provide formal secular education, they are exempted from the applicability of the Act. The Act, therefore, does not interfere with the protection guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the provisions in the Act in no way prevent the giving of religious education to students who wish to take religious education in addition to primary education. Hence, seeks for a declaration that the Act and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are not applicable to a Gurukul. It is also submitted that Section 2[27] of the Act also makes it clear that the provisions of the said Act are not applicable relating to the giving, providing or imparting only religious instruction, but not any other instruction; or imparting instruction for which there is no approved syllabi or course of studies or Government or University Examination. 7. It is further submitted that the Annexure-A though styled as notice, is an order passed by the Block Education Officer, directing the petitioner No.1 to shift the students studying in the school run by the petitioner No.1 but according to learned counsel for the petitioner no students are studying in Class I to Class X as contemplated in the order. Hence, the directions of the Block Education Officer to shift the students studying from I to X standard in the petitioner No.1's school as directed would not arise. The students studying in Gurukul cannot be construed as the students studying from I to X standard. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate having filed the statement of objections on behalf of the respondents, supports the impugned notice. The students studying in Gurukul cannot be construed as the students studying from I to X standard. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate having filed the statement of objections on behalf of the respondents, supports the impugned notice. It is submitted that the first petitioner's institution is running I to X standard classes unauthorizedly without obtaining any permission from the competent authority and even without registering the institution as contemplated under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. It is submitted that the application filed by the petitioners seeking for permission to start the school for imparting education to the students from I to X standard has been rejected based on the Three Men Committee report. Hence, the petitions do not merit any consideration. 9. I have given careful consideration to the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The impugned notice at Annexure-A though directs the petitioner No.1 to shift the students studying in I to X standard to the authorized schools having permission to run the classes, the gist of the said notice indicates that the application filed by the petitioner No.1 seeking permission to run classes for the academic year 2014-15 from I to X standard has been rejected. It is also observed that the petitioner No.1 is imparting education to the students from Class I to X without obtaining necessary permission and registration from the competent authority. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners to be considered, no such classes are conducted for the students from Class I to Class X relating to the academic year 2014-15. On the other hand, permission sought by the petitioners to start the classes for the Class I to X has been rejected. If so, there is no occasion for the petitioner No.1 to shift the students studying in Classes I to X unauthorizedly to any other institution as directed by the Block Education Officer. 11. However, these factual aspects cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction. If so, there is no occasion for the petitioner No.1 to shift the students studying in Classes I to X unauthorizedly to any other institution as directed by the Block Education Officer. 11. However, these factual aspects cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction. It is for the petitioner No.1 to clarify/establish before the Block Education Officer that the students getting religious education in the Gurukula cannot be confused or treated as students getting education from class I to X. In the circumstances, the petitioner No.1 shall file reply/objections before the Block Education Officer in as much as students pursuing religious education in the petitioner No.1's institution are exempted under the provisions of the Act. 12. In such circumstances, declaration sought by the petitioners would be premature unless it is established that the petitioner No.1 religious institution is imparting religious instructions in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan supra, to get exempted from the provisions of the Act. No such declaration merely considering the point of law sans the cogent material evidence can be issued at this stage. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions stand disposed of to construe the Annexure-A as a show cause notice and the petitioner No.1 shall file objections/reply to the same with necessary material evidence within a period of three weeks from today and the same shall be considered by the Block Education Officer in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The said decision shall be taken by the official respondent Block Education Officer in an expedite manner in any event not later than six weeks from the date of filing of reply/objections to the notice at Annexure-A to the writ petitions. It is made clear that if the petitioners establish that the school running by them is a religious institution a Gurkul and not imparting education from Class I to X in accordance with the syllabi prescribed under the Rules and the Act, the official respondent Block Education Officer shall drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner No.1. It is made clear that without being influenced by the observations made herein above, the authorities shall consider the fresh application filed by the Nithyananda Vidyalaya seeking permission to start a new primary school for the academic year 2018-19 in accordance with law. It is made clear that without being influenced by the observations made herein above, the authorities shall consider the fresh application filed by the Nithyananda Vidyalaya seeking permission to start a new primary school for the academic year 2018-19 in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.