JUDGMENT P.B. Bajanthri, J. - In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a) Strike down Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act-1983 (Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1995) as it is in violation of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. b) Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the letter bearing No. ED 478 SES 2015 dated 19/1/2016 written by the 1st respondent true copy of which is produced as Annexure-K and the consequential memorandum bearing No. C8(4) ShaShiAa: Dooru: 96:2011-12 dated 25.1.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent copy of which is produced as Annexure-M. 2. Petitioner is a Society called Vinayaka Education Society which is a registered Society. Petitioner-Institution is a grant-in-aid for certain courses. On 1.10.1994, petitioners Society sought for commencement of Junior college which was permitted without grant. Thereafter, petitioner commenced Job Oriented Course (for short JOC). One of the student by name K. Lokeshappa who was passed out of JOC sought for certain documents with the petitioner-Society whereby officials of the Society stated to have demanded Rs. 1,500/- in respect of each student i.e. for two students a sum of Rs. 3,000/- amount stated to have been demanded. Feeling aggrieved by such demand, the students approached office of the Karnataka Lokayukta, whereby office of the Lokayukta led trap proceedings against the officials of the petitioner-Society. 3. In this regard, office of the Lokayukta is said to have made correspondence with the petitioner Society seeking permission to prosecute such of those employees who were involved in the alleged trap proceedings. There were protracted proceedings among the office of the Lokayukta, Education Department and the petitioner-Society. Petitioner-Society had passed a resolution that employees who are involved in the alleged trap case were not government servants. Consequently, granting permission for prosecution would not arise. The same was reiterated with reference to the later correspondence to overcome decision of the Society, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have taken a decision and permitted to prosecute employees of the petitioner. In this background, the petitioner-Society has questioned the validity of Section 101 of Education Act, 1983 (for short the Act) and Annexure K and Annexure-M. Section 101 of the Act is relating to imposing of penalty which reads as under: 101. 1 and 2 have taken a decision and permitted to prosecute employees of the petitioner. In this background, the petitioner-Society has questioned the validity of Section 101 of Education Act, 1983 (for short the Act) and Annexure K and Annexure-M. Section 101 of the Act is relating to imposing of penalty which reads as under: 101. Power of Government to impose penalties.-Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 92 and 94 and subject to such rules as may be prescribed, where the competent authority is of the opinion that disciplinary action against an employee is necessary, it may direct the Governing Council to take action within a specified period. If the Governing Council fails to comply with the direction, the competent authority shall report the matter to the State Government, which after considering the report may specify by order, a person or authority to take disciplinary action against the employee. The person or authority so specified may thereupon take disciplinary action against the employee and impose all or any of the penalties which the Governing Council can impose. An appeal shall lie from a decision of such person or authority to the tribunal, within the prescribed period. 4. Annexure-K is an internal correspondence among Prl. Secretary, Primary and Higher Education Department and Commissioner and Public Instruction relating to sanction for prosecution of employees of the petitioner-Institution. Annexure-M-Commissioner of Public Instruction had given sanction for prosecution of two employees of petitioners Society under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Section 101 relates to imposition of penalty of its employees. The competent authority is a Society. Therefore, any decision by the official-respondent in respect of employee of petitioner-Society is without power. It was further contended Society has already taken decisions not to permit the competent authority for prosecution of its employees. It was further contended that State-respondent cannot sit over the petitioner-Societys decision in respect of prosecuting its employees or not. It was further contended there were no directions by the Government so as to disobey the directions of the Government/Department. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner-Society relied on decision of the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen in Criminal Appeal No. 2353/2010 (para No. 4) to contend that State cannot issue permission for prosecution of petitioners-Society employees. 5. It was further contended there were no directions by the Government so as to disobey the directions of the Government/Department. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner-Society relied on decision of the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen in Criminal Appeal No. 2353/2010 (para No. 4) to contend that State cannot issue permission for prosecution of petitioners-Society employees. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State resisted the contentions of the petitioner and supported Section 101 of the Act, Annexures-K and M. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that petitioner has no locus in respect of challenge to Annexures-K and M. It was submitted that both the documents relating to internal correspondence between two official respondents, later one is relating to sanction to prosecute in respect of two employees of petitioners-Society. If at all Annexure-M is to be questioned, concerned employees have grievance and not the petitioner-Society. The Societys power has not been taken away in Annexure-M dated 25.1.2016 and there is no deviation of Section 101 of the Act. Thus, the petition is not maintainable on the ground of locus. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, question for consideration in the present petition is challenge to Section 101 of the Act-Power of Government to impose penalties, Petitioner has not urged any contentions like competency or violation of Article 14, in the absence of any valid contention, Petitioner has not made out case so as to examine the validity of Section 101 of the Act. Further, challenge to internal correspondence among the respondents Annexure-K dated 19.1.2016 and official memorandum dated 25.1.2016-Annexure-M is made out or not? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 101 of the Act do not empower the official respondent to give sanction to prosecution employees of the Society. It is to be noted that even though there is a reference to Section 101 of the Act in Annexure-K merely quoting wrong provision does not vitiate order or communication as held by the Apex Court from time to time. Moreover, official-respondent have rectified their action i.e. with reference to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner submitted that in Annexure-K reference is for Section 101 of the Act. Therefore, petitioner has a locus in respect of imposition of penalties of its employees. Moreover, official-respondent have rectified their action i.e. with reference to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner submitted that in Annexure-K reference is for Section 101 of the Act. Therefore, petitioner has a locus in respect of imposition of penalties of its employees. Sanction to prosecute does not amount to penalty under Section 101 of the Act. 9. Perusal of Annexure-K dated 19.1.2016 is not with reference to imposition of penalty. It is only in respect of issue of sanction to prosecute the petitioners employees. Annexure-M dated 25.1.2016 is an Official Memorandum by which Commissioner of Public Instructions has given sanction to prosecute petitioners employees. Thus, both the communications dated 19.1.2016 and 25.1.2016 are nowhere concern with the petitioners Society and Government has not imposed any penalty on petitioner-employee so as to say that power of petitioner is taken away. Annexure-M is against the petitioners employees namely M. Shivalingappa, Head Master and Smt. R.S. Renuka, Assistant Teacher (Hindi) since prosecution permission has been granted against the aforesaid persons. Thus, petitioners have no locus standi. A person shall have no locus standi to file a Writ Petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned act or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the Writ applied for is a Writ of habeas Corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. 10. In view of these facts and circumstances, cited decision on behalf of the petitioner has no application unless petitioner has a locus. Thus, question would arise is as to whether official-respondent have power to sit over the decision of the petitioners-Society in respect of sanction to prosecute its employees. Society-petitioner have not pointed out source of power to reject for sanction to prosecute its employees and further, official-respondents have not set aside the Societys decision and official-respondents have passed an independent communication/order. They have not invoked Section 101 of Act, on the other hand, invoked provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Society-petitioner have not pointed out source of power to reject for sanction to prosecute its employees and further, official-respondents have not set aside the Societys decision and official-respondents have passed an independent communication/order. They have not invoked Section 101 of Act, on the other hand, invoked provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thus, petitioner-Society has not made out a case so as to interfere with Section 101 of the Act, Annexures-K and M. Petition stands dismissed.