IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2011

[Arising out of SLP(C) No.21567/2010]

SHIVAGANGAGIRI  VIDYABIRUDDI  SAMSTE

.......APPELLANT  

Versus

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Leave granted.   2. The  appellant  gave  a  representation  to  the  State  Government for permission to establish a Junior college.  The State Government, by order dated 3.8.1985, permitted  the  appellant  to  establish  a  Junior  college  from  the  academic year 1985-86.

3. Appellant claims that in pursuance of the said order,  it has established and been running a Junior college.  When  the appellant applied for grant-in-aid, on the basis of an  inspection made, the Government came to the conclusion that  the appellant had not established the junior college prior  to 1.6.1987. As a consequence, by order dated 7.10.1999, it  held that as the Junior college was not started prior to  1.6.1987, the permission granted on 3.8.1985 lapsed.

4. However,  on  a  subsequent  inspection  report  dated  24.8.2000,  the  State  Government  made  an  order  dated  1.1.2002 by which the cancellation order dated 7.10.1999  was withdrawn and the earlier order dated 3.8.1985 granting  permission  was  revived.  Administrative  and  educational  approval to the said college was also granted from 1985-86.  

5. Thereafter,  the  Government  by  order  dated  21.9.2002  cancelled the order dated 1.1.2002 with immediate effect  and sanction was accorded to the appellant’s Pre-University  college only from the academic year 2002-03. The said order  was passed without giving any opportunity to show cause to  the  appellant.  In  the  circumstances,  the  appellant  made  several representations to the Government. The matter was  under  consideration  by  the  Government  and  there  was  a  direction by the Chief Minister to re-validate the order  dated  1.1.2002.  In  fact  the  Director,  Pre-University  Education, by communication dated 14.12.2004, addressed to  the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education, referring  to  the  decision  of  the  Chief  Minister,  requested  the  Government  to  issue  appropriate  orders  validating  the  earlier order     dated 1.1.2002. The appellant therefore  waited  for  a  reasonable  period  hoping  that  appropriate  orders will be passed. Ultimately, as no order was issued,  the appellant filed a writ petition in the year 2007 for  

2

quashing  the  order  dated  21.9.2002  and  seeking  implementation of the order dated 1.1.2002. The said writ  petition was dismissed on 6.6.2007. The writ appeal filed  by the appellant was dismissed by the impugned order dated  15.6.2010, on the ground that the writ petition was filed  belatedly.   

6. Firstly, it has to be noticed that there was no delay  or laches on the part of the appellant in filing the writ  petition. The order dated 21.9.2002 was not passed after  giving an opportunity to the appellant. Secondly, when the  appellant came to know about it, he gave representations  and  the  matter  was  under  consideration  and  in  fact  a  communication was addressed on 14.12.2004 by the Director,  Pre  University  Education  for  revalidation  of  the  order  dated  1.1.2002.   It  was  evident  that  the  appellant  was  waiting issuance of appropriate orders in pursuance of it.  Only when the Government order dated 1.1.2002 was not re- validated in spite of the communication dated 14.12.2004,  it filed the writ petition. Hence, dismissal on the ground  of delay and laches cannot be sustained.   

7. Valuable rights had accrued to the appellant by reason  of the order dated 1.1.2002 which revived the earlier order  dated 3.8.1985 thereby granting permission to the appellant  

3

to  establish  the  Junior  college  from  1985-86.   Such  an  order, obviously, could not  be withdrawn without any show  cause notice or giving an opportunity to the appellant to  show cause.  In fact, having regard to the provisions of  the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, an opportunity to show  cause is required before withdrawal of any permission. In  the circumstances, the order dated 21.9.2002 being opposed  the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. The  appellant has to succeed on this limited ground.  

8. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order  dated 15.6.2010 of the Division Bench and the order dated  6.6.2007 of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ  petition filed by the appellant before the High Court and  quash  the  order  dated  21.9.2002.  As  a  consequence,  the  order dated 1.1.2002 will continue to be in force. We make  it clear that the State Government, if it still wants to  take any action with reference to the order dated 1.1.2002,  may do so after giving due opportunity to the appellant to  show  cause  in  the  matter.   We  have  not  expressed  any  opinion on the merits of the matter and this order is made  only on the ground that principles of natural justice were  violated in issuing the order dated 21.9.2002.

.....................J.

4

         ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;            ....................J. January 04, 2011.                   ( A.K. PATNAIK )

5