WA/1492/2026 of NOLAMBA LINGAYATHA SANGHA Vs SRI. BASAVARAJENDRA HIGH SCHOOL ARASIKERE on 2 September 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.1429/2025 (EDN-RES).

2. Respondent No.1, Sri. Basavarajendra High School, Arasikere, had filed the said petition impugning an order dated 10.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 39 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, withdrawing the recognition of Sri. Basavarajendra High School, Arasikere. The order states that recognition was withdrawn on the ground that the management of respondent No.1 School had failed to provide its own site and basic infrastructure as required under Rules 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(k) of the Karnataka Education Institutions (Recognition of Primary and Secondary Schools) Rules, 1999, and that it had failed to ensure the safety of children as per the Education Act, 1983. Accordingly, the Deputy Director, Department of Education, was directed to take appropriate measures to enrol students currently studying in 8th

HC-KAR

and 9th standards in nearby schools. Additionally, it was directed that all academic records be transferred to a nearby Government school. The learned Single Judge found that the reasons regarding the safety of children set out in the order dated 10.01.2025 are not sustainable.

3. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Court, the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, Hassan Division had filed a report, which, inter alia, stated as under: “4. All the 11 rooms of the building are inspected, the internal condition of the room is verified and found that the roof of the building is additionally supported with horizontal girder with 2 vertical girders support on either side of the wall, in order to increase the stability of the roof. The arrangement of the rooms for various purposes in the school is as tabulated as here under: Sl. No. Arrangements of the rooms No. of Rooms

1. Class Rooms

2. Office Room

3. Staff Room

4. Computer Room

5. Library

6. Store

Total 11 no’s In addition there are 2 separate rooms situated adjacent to the building for the purpose of kitchen and toilets.

HC-KAR

All the rooms are in good condition with required facilities for running the school. The building is provided with proper water supply and sanitisation facility and also equipped with required furnitures electrification, computer facilities etc. The roof of the Building is covered with G.I sheet roofing using steel trusses to the lower height in order to protect the RCC roof from weathering actions. It is observed that the school building is repaired and painted recently. The photos of the building, rooms, kitchen and toilets etc are enclosed Annexure-C. The panchanama for having conducted the inspection of the building in the presence of the petitioner and respondents as directed by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka is enclosed Annexure-D.

5. Conclusion: After detailed inspection of the building, I'm in the opinion that, the school building in question is fit for human use for running the school.”

4. In view of the aforesaid report, one of the principal conditions on which the school’s recognition was withdrawn was not substantiated. In the aforesaid view, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the report of the Public Works Department. According to him, the report did not support the conclusion that the building was safe for use. The said contention

HC-KAR

is plainly unmerited and runs contrary to the plain language of the said report as set out above.

6. Insofar as the issue of title of the property is concerned, the learned Single Judge did not examine it. The order dated 10.01.2025 has been set aside solely on the ground that the principal reason set out in the said order is erroneous.

7. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

8. The pending applications stand disposed of.

9. We also clarify that this order does not preclude the Department of Education from re-examining other issues and taking an appropriate decision on whether the recognition should be withdrawn on the ground of title to the property.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

SD, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12