WA/1834/2026 of ANAANTHSHREE FORUM Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 31 July 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 20.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18888/2026 (EDN-RES). The petitioner had filed the said petition impugning the notice dated 16.06.2026 [impugned notice] issued by respondent No.2, the Block Educational Officer [BEO].

2. The petitioner states that she is running a pre-primary educational institution named EuroKids V.V. Puram at Vishweshwarapura, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru and had made an

HC-KAR

application for recognition of the said school. Pursuant to the said application, inspection was conducted, and the impugned notice indicates that certain deficiencies were found.

3. The impugned notice also indicates that the petitioner's institution was granted recognition for the academic year 2026- 2027 subject to the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1982 [KE Act] and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recognition of Primary Schools) Rules [Rules].

4. It is the petitioner's case that she is not required to have any registered lease under the said Rules as the school in question is a pre-primary school. The petitioner did not respond to the impugned notice and filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by the impugned order. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the said petition on the ground that it was filed against a show cause notice and the petitioner had full opportunity to respond to the same.

5. Apparently, the petitioner's brother claims title to the property where the school is run and has raised objection to the petitioner's

HC-KAR

claim for recognition. He also filed an application seeking impleadment in the writ petition. In the given facts, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the petitioner as well as the petitioner’s brother. The learned Single Judge had granted liberty to the petitioner to respond to the impugned notice dated 16.06.2026 within 8 days from the date of the order and further directed the respondent authorities to consider the reply and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner and her brother a personal hearing.

6. The appellant is aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge, which directs the Authorities to grant a personal hearing to her brother. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant’s brother has no locus to object to the grant of recognition or registration of the appellant's school, notwithstanding that he claims title to the property in which the school is run. He contends that, since the appellant is not required to furnish any lease or documents relating to the title of the property on which the school is run, the issue of whether the

HC-KAR

appellant has sufficient title or right to use the said property cannot be examined by the BEO.

7. We note that the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding as to the locus of the appellant's brother to object to the grant of recognition/ registration to the school run by the appellant. It is also not necessary for this Court to examine whether the appellant's brother can raise any objections for the grant of recognition or registration on the ground that he claims to be the owner of the subject property. The appellant is not precluded from raising all such objections, including as to the locus of her brother before the BEO. The learned Single Judge has merely directed that the appellant’s brother be afforded a hearing. We find no infirmity in the said decision. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

8. The pending application stands disposed of.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE SD, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25