ORDER : R. Devdas J. The petitioner Trust had established a Pre-primary school along with standards 1 to 5 during the year 2005. The standards 6 to 8 were registered in terms of the registration certificate dated 28.06.2016, particularly the medium of instructions was permitted to be converted to English medium as per the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions. The school was being run at 14th cross, Cholarapalya, Magadi Raod, Bengaluru and said building was a leased premises and the landlord was insisting that the premises should be vacated and the Trust is said to have been facing lot of problems. Therefore the Trust identified another premises in the same area i.e., property bearing No.26, I Cross, Cholarapalya, Magadi Road, Bangalore. The petitioner Trust made an application on 08.06.2018 seeking permission to relocate the school to the new address. 2. It is contended by the petitioner Trust that the new premises is of a larger area when compared to the existing school premises and it belongs to one of the trustees and therefore building and infrastructure were created to comply with requirements of the Karnataka Education Act/Rules and the various circular issued by the State Government. However, since the respondent authorities did not grant the permission, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8186/2020, which was disposed of on 26.01.2020 recording the submission of the learned AGA that the representation dated 08.06.2018 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within a period of two months. Consequently, the 3rd respondent-Director of Public Instructions passed the impugned order dated 11.06.2020 at Annexure-R while noticing that the opinion of the local inspection committee was that the premises did not have the required infrastructure. Reference is also made to Rule 5 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Change in the Governing Council or Change in the Location of Private Educational Institutions) Rules, 2006, which stipulates that unless permission is granted, the institution cannot be shifted to a new location and there is no provision for post facto approval. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director of Public Instructions has wrongly noticed that the opinion of the local inspection committee was that the new premises did not have the required infrastructure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director of Public Instructions has wrongly noticed that the opinion of the local inspection committee was that the new premises did not have the required infrastructure. On the other hand attention of this Court drawn to the communication dated 09.07.2018 made by the Block Education Officer to the Deputy Director stating that the new premises has all the requisite infrastructure and therefore he recommended that permission could be granted to shift the school to a new location. The Deputy Director in return made a communication dated 10.09.2018 to the Director, bringing to his notice the opinion of the Block Education Officer along with an objection raised by the President of the Kannada Development Authority. Nevertheless, reference is made to a subsequent communication dated 16.08.2018 made by the Block Education Officer who had stated that Three Member Committee had visited the new premises and another neighbouring school had raised objection for shifting of the school, nevertheless, Deputy Director had sought for further direction at the hands of the Director of Public Instructions. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the subsequent observations of the Director of public instructions that the new premises did not have the requisite infrastructure may not be correct. It is moreover submitted that even according to the respondent authorities the school which is being run in the present premises has lesser infrastructure and space when compared to the new premises and therefore the observations of the Director of Public Instructions is required to be considered in the light of the factual admission in terms of the communication referred to herein above. The learned counsel would further submit that the application was initially given on 08.06.2018 and the authorities have sat over the matter, while during the course of these proceedings the students had to be shifted to the new premises since the existing school building was in dilapidated condition and landlord was insisting that the school should be vacated. 4. Per contra, the learned AGA submits that at any rate the petitioner Trust should not have shifted to the new premises without there being prior approval at the hands of the respondent authorities. 4. Per contra, the learned AGA submits that at any rate the petitioner Trust should not have shifted to the new premises without there being prior approval at the hands of the respondent authorities. Attention of this Court is drawn to the Section 41(5) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 which provides that if there is change in the Governing Council of the institution or change in the location of the institution a fresh application for recognition shall be made as if it was a newly started institution. It is submitted that in terms of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Change in the Governing Council or Change in the Location of Private Educational Institutions) Rules, 2006, change of location shall not be permitted by the competent authority unless the Governing Council has provided all the facilities prescribed, at the new location. In terms of sub-rule(5) of Rule 5, if the competent authority permits change in the location, a fresh application for registration and recognition shall be made as if it was a newly started institution. Reference is also made to a notification dated 08.03.2018, whereby the Karnataka Educational Institution (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricular etc., (amendment)) Rules, 2018 was brought into force. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 is pressed into service and it is submitted that every private body of persons desiring to establish and maintain an educational institution is required to own or take on lease for a minimum period of 30 years having minimum of contagious extent of land for the building and play ground of the educational institution with permission from relevant authority to use for educational purposes. Emphasis is laid on the fact that the provision prescribes that the Trust should own the property or should have on lease for a minimum period of 30 years. The attention of this Court is also drawn to the requirement of a minimum extent of land viz., 2000 sq. meters. 5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the writ petition papers. 6. Certain factual aspects which are borne out by the records and the submissions made by the learned counsels is that the students have been shifted from the earlier premises to the new premises. The respondent authorities are required to take the blame for this. If timely action was taken, the petitioner Trust would have known the outcome of its application seeking permission to relocate. The respondent authorities are required to take the blame for this. If timely action was taken, the petitioner Trust would have known the outcome of its application seeking permission to relocate. This Court is required to take note of the fate of the students who are studying in the school. It is also required to notice that there have been instances where this Court interfered and relief has been granted to the institutions. One such case is of ACE Foundation in W.P.No.22055/2019 which was disposed of along with W.P.No.15617-15618/2019 on 16.07.2019. It was noticed that the school was shifted to a new location without obtaining prior approval of the department in terms of the Education Act, 1983 and allied Rules and Block Education Officer has inspected the premises and positively recommended for post facto sanction inasmuch as shifting of the school considering the safety of the students studying in the school. Directions were therefore given to reconsider the order passed by the authorities. Thereafter on 13.08.2019 the Principal Secretary of the Department of Education directed the Commissioner of Public Instructions to permit relocation of the school to the new location with certain conditions. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the initial opinion of the Block Education Officer and the Deputy Director of Public Instructions that the petitioner Trust has complied with the required infrastructure in the new premises and the subsequent volte face done by the authorities is required to be taken note of. Be that as it may, when the students have been shifted from the old premises to new premises, there is no other alternative left with the authorities then to give their approval. The consequences of declining the approval would be so harsh that all the students in the school and their career would be put to jeopardy. If timely action was taken such situation would have been avoided. 8. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary of the Department of Primary and Secondary Education to consider the application dated 08.06.2018 made by the petitioner Trust and pass orders having regard to the observations made herein above. Ordered accordingly.