Case Title: CREATIVE EDUCATION TRUST versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and others
Case No: WP No. 13498 of 2024
Decided on: 21st May , 2024
Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
Facts of the case
The materials offered are connected to a writ suit that the Creative Education Trust filed about the Karnataka Education Act, 1983’s loss of recognition. Because the reply notice was sent through the petitioner’s counsel, it was ignored, and as a result, the order was declared unlawful and unsupportable. While noting that respondent No. 3’s arguments were unsustainable, the High Court Government Pleader emphasized that the petitioner’s noncompliance served as the foundation for the contested order . The impugned order was set aside, the petition was granted, and the case was remanded for further review with a 15-day window for the petitioner to provide more responses . After evaluating the reasons presented by respondent No. 3, the court instructed respondent No. 3 to issue the necessary orders the person making the petition.
Issues
1. What caused the petitioner’s recognition under the Karnataka Education Act to be revoked?
2. Why did the petitioner object to respondent No. 3’s order?
3. How did the judicial proceedings pertaining to the petitioner’s challenge turn out?
Appellant’s contention
It is unclear that the e petitioner gave grounds in their reply, which the appellant claimed respondent No. 3 ignored notice since it was sent through their advocate, which was viewed as bold and illogical. Due to the illegal and unsustainable ruling that resulted from this disregard, the matter has to be remitted for new review, giving the petitioner 15 days to provide more responses.
Respondent contentions
Respondent No. 3 gave unsupportable reasons for the impugned order, according to the respondent, but the petitioner’s operation of the institution in violation of the law was the basis for the impugned order. While admitting that respondent No. 3’s arguments were unsustainable, the High Court Government Pleader maintained that the order was issued as a result of the petitioner’s failure to comply with legal requirements. Even though respondent No. 3’s justifications were found to be untenable, the High Court Government Pleader emphasized the petitioner’s noncompliance in operating the institution as the foundation for the contested ruling .
Court Analysis and Judgement
The Supreme Court discovered that, because the reply notice was sent through the petitioner’s counsel, respondent No. 3 neglected to take into account the arguments made by the petitioner. The impugned order was set aside and the case was remitted for new consideration, with the petitioner having 15 days to provide more reply, because it was determined that this lack of consideration was unlawful and unsustainable. After giving the petitioner enough time and taking into account the reasons stated in the submitted reply, the court instructed respondent No. 3 to issue the necessary orders .
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
Click here to view the judgement
