Karnataka High Court
The Al-Jamia Mohamadiyah Education … vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.2595 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE AL-JAMIA MOHAMADIYAH
EDUCATION SOCIETY
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
NO.6/A, HAZRAT TERRACE ANNEXE,
SHAIKH HAFIUDDIN MARG, MUMBAI - 400 008.
ALSO AT:
THE AL-JAMIA MOHAMADIYAH EDUCATION SOCIETY,
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
R.K. HEGDE NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 077,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MR. KHALID MUSHARRUF,
S/O R. ABDUL JALEEL,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS..
CHAYA S A ....PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. THE COMMISSIONER
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
4. THE DIRECTOR
SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
SOUTH-4, KALASIPALYA,
BENGALURU-560002
6. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
SOUTH-4, K R PURAM,
BENGALURU-560036
7. SRI. MASEEH AHMED
S/O. DASTAGIR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.208/232,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
NEAR SANABIL SCHOOL,
HOMMADEVANAHALLI,
GOTTIGERE,
BENGALURU - 560 083.
8. SRI. CHAND PASHA
S/O. SATTAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1/1, 2ND CROSS,
6TH MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU 560 026.
9. SRI. ABDUAL HAMED PASHA
S/O. ABDUL KHADAR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.223, 5TH CROSS,
GANGONDANAHALLI, NAYANDAHALLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 039.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.A. AHMED, AAG A/W
SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA B., AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR;
SMT.VARALAKSHMI NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY T., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BASAVARAJ PATEL G.K., ADVOCATE /CR/R8;
SRI. NARAYAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER / MEMORANDUM DATED 30.05.2025 VIDE NO.A8(ANU)
W.P.NO.30975/ 2024 /39/2024-25 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE – AW AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S.
INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the
order/Memorandum dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure-AW);
Memorandum/order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure-AX);
order dated 19.01.2026 in appeal No.8 of 2025 on the
file of the respondent No.2 (Annexure-AY) inter-alia
sought for direction to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to
consider the representation made by the petitioner for
modification of Registration Certificate and other
documents depicting the name of the petitioner and to
issue modified certificate under Rule 7 of Karnataka
Education Institutions (Classification and Registration)
Rules, 1997.
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ
petition are that, the institution “The Al-Jamia
Mohamadiyah Education Society” is a registered Society
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860
of State of Maharasthra (Annexure-A). It is stated that
the object of the Society, is as per the Memorandum of
Association, and notified under Schedule-III of Bombay
Public Trust Act, 1950 (Annexure-E). It is stated that,
the report of changes, in the Trust as “Al-Jamia
Mohammediyah Education Society” as per Annexure-G.
One Mohammed Azeezuddin, had acquired the land for
the purpose of religious and running the school as per
the registered Sale Deeds dated 14.09.1988
(Annexure-H and J). Thereafter, the land was converted
from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose by order
dated 19.08.1991 issued by the Special Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru. The aforementioned
property was gifted as per Declaratory Affidavit, dated
17.04.1999 by the said Mohammed Azeezuddin in
favour of M/s.Mohammadeeya Educational Trust,
Bengaluru (Annexure-K). It is stated that the BBMP has
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
issued khata in respect of subject land, in the name of
“M/s Al-Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society of
Mumbai” (Annexure-M). Thereafter, the respondent
No.6, has issued Registration Certificate dated
19.01.2006 to the “Jamia Mohammediayah Mansoora”
Urdu Medium School to run from 1st Standard to 5th
Standard, in Urdu Medium of Instruction as per
Annexure-P, and the respondent No.2, has issued
Registration Certificate on 23.06.2009 (Annexure-P1)
to run 6th and 7th Standard (permanently unaided) in
English Medium School. It is also to be noted that, the
respondent No.5 has issued the Registration Certificate
dated 06.07.2009, (Annexure-Q) to conduct classes
from 8th standard to 10th standard in Urdu Medium of
Instruction. On 24.06.2010 (Annexure-R), the
respondent No. 2 has accorded permission to run 8th
standard to 10th standard in the Medium of English
language. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that, the
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
Recognition Certificate dated 15.09.2012 and
23.01.2017 (Annexure-S and T respectively) was
issued by the respondent No.6, to the ‘Jamia
Mohammediya Mansoora’. Similar Recognition
Certificate was issued by the competent authority as
per the Annexure-V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC and AD
respectively.
3. It is further stated in the writ petition that,
the Memorandum dated 29.09.2015, was issued by the
respondent No.2 as to change of the name of the
school, from ‘Jamiya Mohammadiya Mansoora Urdu
Primary School’, Thanisandra as ‘Saamar International
Islamic School’ as per Annexure-AE.
4. In the meanwhile, the respondent-authority
had issued show-cause notice dated 19.02.2025
(Annexure-AP) to the petitioner, calling upon to file
reply, as to different names of the school and
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
projecting different name boards in the school as the
governing body to run the Institution. Thereafter, the
respondent No.5 addressed another show-cause notice
dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure-AQ) seeking explanation
from the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the three
member committee submitted the report dated
14.05.2025 to the respondent No.2, and the
explanation offered by the petitioner on 21.05.2025 has
been considered by the respondent No.5, and thereby
recommended for cancellation of the recognition as per
Annexure-AS.
5. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition
that, the respondent-authorities after considering the
material on record, and the explanation offered by the
petitioner by Memorandum dated 30.05.2025,
(Annexure- AW) withdrew the recognition under
Section 39 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983
(hereinafter referred to Act) and similar orders have
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
been passed as per Memorandum/order dated
30.05.2025 (Annexure-AX) by the respondent No.4.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
preferred appeal under Section 130 of the Act, before
the respondent No.2, in Appeal No.8 of 2025 and the
respondent No.2, vide order dated 19.01.2026
(Annexure-AY) dismissed the appeal preferred by the
petitioner on merits. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has presented this writ petition.
6. I have heard Sri. M. P. Srikanth, learned
counsel for the petitioner; Sri. S. A. Ahmed, learned
Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Sukanya
Baliga .B, learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 to 6; Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel for Smt. Varalakshmi Nagaraj,
learned counsel for respondent No.7; Sri.
Narayanaswamy. T, learned counsel for Sri. Basavaraj
Patel. G.K, learned counsel for respondent No.8/
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
Caveator and Sri. Narayana Bhat, learned counsel for
the respondent No. 9.
7. Sri. M.P. Srikanth, learned counsel for the
petitioner argued that, the impugned
orders/Memorandum passed by the respondent-
authorities suffers from infirmity as no fair opportunity
was extended to the petitioner-Institution during the
proceedings culminating in passing the impugned
orders/Memorandum. Learned counsel further argued
that, the finding recorded by the respondent-authorities
as to the discrepancy in the place of running the
Education Institution is false as the petitioner-
Institution is working as per the Bye-laws of ‘Al-Jamiya
Mohammadiyah Education Society’ and therefore,
argued that, the finding recorded by the respondent-
authorities is contrary to law.
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
argued that, as a Madarasa was being run in the name
and style of ‘Jamia Mohammadiyah Mansoora’ and
using that name, an application was made to register
the primary school and the said mistake has crept into
the name of the Management as ‘Jamiya Mohammadiya
Mansoora’ and the name of the institution as Jamiya
Mohammadia Mansoora Urdu higher primary school and
as such, argued that the change in the name of the
institution was permitted by the respondent-authorities,
which was duly endorsed in the Recognition Certificate
as has been issued to the petitioner-institution and
accordingly, sought for interference of this court.
9. It is further contended that, the respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 have no jurisdiction to cancel the
registration or withdrew the recognition of the
petitioner-Institution under Section 34 and 39 of the
Act and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel has
relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Nooli Channayya Smaraka v.
State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2004
KAR 4135 and in the case of Mahendra Pal v. State
of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2010)
13 SCC 441 and sought for quashing the impugned
orders.
10. Per contra, Sri. S. A. Ahmed, learned
Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the
Smt. Sukanya Baliga .B, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 argued in support
of the impugned orders and submitted that, the
petitioner is running the Institution in different names
and also running a Madarasa School in the same
building, which is contrary to the secular medium of
instruction to be imparted by the respondent-State and
as such sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
11. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Varalakshmi
Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.7 argued that, the petitioner-institution is not in
existence and there is no registration of the Society
under the Societies Registration Act, and the petitioner-
Institution is playing fraud against the public and the
government and further the petitioner-Institution is
running a Madarasa religious system of school to the
children by availing State aid and same is contrary to
the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and therefore,
sought for interference of this court.
12. It is the specific contention of the learned
Senior Counsel that, the petitioner has no right or
authority to run the Institution and further the
petitioner has filed O S No. 25314 of 2024 before the
City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, seeking
declaration in respect of the ownership of the property
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
which is under dispute and further it is argued that, the
school being running in different names, and
accordingly, invited the attention of the court to
paragraph 5 of statement of objections. It is also
argued by the learned Senior Counsel that, the
petitioner -Institution has admitted before the
respondent-authorities that a mistake has been crept
as to the name of the Institution and therefore, sought
for dismissal of the writ petition. Emphasising on the
finding recorded by the respondent No.2-authority, in
the impugned orders as to the misrepresentation of
identity by the petitioner-Institution, it is argued that,
and the petitioner -Institution is misleading the
respondent-authorities and the parents of the pupil,
and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
13. Sri. Basavaraj Patel G.K. and
Sri.Narayanaswamy, learned counsel for the
respondent No.8, reiterates the averments made in the
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
statement of objections and argued that, the petitioner
is running the different Institutions mentioning names
of different societies, and therefore, the petitioner-
Institution is playing fraud against respondent-
authorities which vitiates every action thereunder and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
Referring to Annexure-R8(1) and R8(3), learned
counsel submitted that, the Registration Certificate
produced by the petitioner-Institution has been verified
by the respondent-authorities and stated that the
Registration Certificate of the society is fake and
therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
14. In the meanwhile, Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.7,
filed memo along with the paper publication in the
‘Saalar Daily Newspaper’, along with the pamphlets
wherein, the petitioner-Institution has advertised
admission to the school, despite the undertaking given
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026HC-KAR
before this Court, not to admit the students and
therefore, the petitioner-Institution has to be penalised
for contempt proceedings and accordingly, sought for
dismissal of the writ petition.
15. In this regard, Sri. Narayana Bhat, learned
counsel for the respondent No.9, places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
S P Chengalvaraya Naidu (D) by LRs v. Jagannath
(D) by LRs and others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1
and argued that, the petitioner-Institution has violated
the norms of the Act, accordingly, sought for dismissal
of the writ petition.
16. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that the petitioner-Institution is a Society,
registered on 16.04.1979 (Annexure-A) in the name of
the ‘Al-Jamia Mahamaddiah Education Society’. The
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
petitioner-Institution/Society had acquired the
properties through the Gift executed by one
Mohammed Azeezuddin. In this regard, declaration
dated 18.04.1999 is produced at Annexure- K. It is not
in dispute that the subject matter of the petitioner’s
land is sub-judice in O.S. No.25314 of 2024 before the
competent Civil Court at Bangalore. It is also to be
noted that, one ‘Jamia Mohammadiya Mansoora’ ®,
Thanisandra, and has given recognition has been made
to ‘Jamiya Mohammadiya Mansoora’ Urdu Primary
School, as per the certificate issued by the respondent-
authorities in Certificate No.66/2005-06 dated
19.01.2006 and Certificate No.86/2009/10 dated
23.06.2009, respectively to conduct classes from 6th
standard to 7th standard in English medium “Without
permanent Aid” for the period from 2009-10 and 2010-
11 as per Section 31 of the Act (Annexure-P and P1). It
is also forthcoming from the Memorandum dated
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
06.07.2009 (Annexure-Q) wherein, the Deputy Director
(Administration), Bangalore City Zilla Panchayat,
accorded permission on 06.07.2009 (Annexure- Q) to
‘Jamiya Mohammadiya Urdu High School, Thanisadra’,
for conducting classes from 8th standard to 10th
standard in Urdu Medium for the period from 2006-
2007 to 2010-11 (without aid) as per Section 36 of the
Act.
17. It is also to be noted that, as per the
Recognition Certificate dated 24.06.2010 (Annexure-R)
wherein, the competent authority has certified the
Governing Council of ‘Jamiya Mohammediya Education
Society’, ®, Mominpura, Bombay, has given recognition
to ‘Jamiya Mohammediya Mansoor English High School.
The said, certification is contrary to the ‘Al-Jamiya
Mohammediyah Education Society’ at Annexure-A. The
perusal of Annexure-P, makes it clear that, the
respondent-authorities, issued the order of recognition
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
to ‘Jamiya Mohammediya Mansoora’, to run 1st
standard to 5th standard in Urdu Medium. Annexure-
P1, is the recognition given to the to the petitioner-
‘Jamiya Mohammediya Mansoora’ for running 6th
standard and 7th standard. Perusal of Annexure- Q, R,
S, and T, wherein, the name of the Institution granting
recognition is ‘Jamiya Mohammadiya Masoora’
however, the recognition as per Annexure-V, wherein,
the name of the school has been shown as ‘Saamar
International Islamic School’, granting recognition to
run 1st standard to 5th standard and thereafter, 6th and
7th standard, again as per Annexure- W, the recognition
was accorded to run, High School, 8th standard to 10th
standard for the academic year 2013-14 and same was
issued in favour of ‘Jamiya Mohameddiya Mansoora’. On
careful consideration of Annexure-X and Y, recognition
was given in the name of ‘Jamiya Mohammadiya
Mansoora’. Perusal of Annexure-Z and AA, wherein, the
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
recognition was granted to ‘Saamar International
Islamic School’ for 1st standard to 5th standard English
Medium. Having taken note of the Memorandum dated
29.09.2015 Annexure-AE, wherein the respondent-
authorities have accorded permission to change the
name of the school from ‘Jamiya Mohammadiya
Mansoora Urdu Primary School’ as ‘Saamar
International Islamic School’, subject to the conditions
specified therein.
18. In the backdrop of these aspects, the perusal
of memorandum dated 30.05.2025 at Annexure- AW,
wherein the respondent-authorities sought explanation
from the petitioner-Institution/Society as to running the
school in different names, and also, remitting the fees,
in the account of different Institutions and in this
regard, the three members committee has conducted
inspection and filed report dated 14.05.2025 stating
that, the Institution has changed the name as J’amiya
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
Mohammadiya Mansoora’ ®, ‘Jamiya Mohammadiya
Education Society’, ‘The Al-Jamiya Mohammadiya
Education Society’ and ‘Al-Jamiya Mohammadiya
Education Society,’ and running above said institutions
in the very same building, and further the petitioner-
Institution/Society, is imparting Madarasa Education,
without seeking permission from the competent
authority. Pursuant to the same the petitioner-
Institution/Society has replied on 21.05.2025, however,
the petitioner-Institution has admitted as to run the
school in the different names, and the reply made by
the petitioner -Society itself is self explanatory and has
violated the provisions of the Act. It is also to be noted
from the impugned orders that, the petitioner-
Institution/Society, ought not to have impart the
Madarasa – informal education in a Institution wherein
secular education has been imparted as per the
conditions stipulated in the order of recognition issued
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
by the competent authority. That apart, perusal of the
finding recorded by the Appellate Authority in Appeal
No. 8 of 2025 (Annexure-AY) wherein, the Appellate
Authority after considering the entire material on record
in detail, arrived at a conclusion that, there is no
society like ‘Jamiya Mohammadiya Masoora, ® Society’,
and has obtained the recognition illegaly, to run the
school as stated above and the petitioner-Society has
suppressed the material fact and committed fraud
against the respondent-authorities.
19. It is also to be noted from the finding
recorded by the respondent-authorities that, there is no
registered Society, like the “The Al-Jamiya
Mohammadiyah Mansoora Education Society” at
Thanisandra and further, the Bank Account has been
opened in an unregistered Society which is not been
recognised by the respondent-authorities. In that view
of the matter, I am of the view that as the respondent-
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
authorities, after considering the report of the three
member committee dated 14.05.2025, arrived at a
right conclusion that, the petitioner-Institution/Society
is receiving fees from the students, however, remitted
the same in the accounts, other than the registered
Society.
20. In that view of the matter, the petitioner-
Institution has violated Section 30, 31 and 36 of the
Act, and running the institution in the name wherein it
is not recognised by the respondent-authorities and as
such, original authority rightly issued impugned order
and thereby the Appellate Authority by its order dated
19.01.2026 rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by
the petitioners therein and therefore, arguments
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-Institution cannot be accepted.
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
21. It is forthcoming from the Annexure- R8(3) of
the Statement of Objections filed by the respondent
No.8, wherein, the respondent-authorities have
addressed letter to the Public Trust Registration Office,
Mumbai, and in this regard, reply dated 13.03.2025
makes it clear that, the Registration Certificate
submitted by the petitioner-Institution claming
registration, on 16.04.1979 is a fake certificate of
registration and further, letter dated 17.04.2025
Annexure- R8(4) reveals that, there is no Society like
‘Jamiya mohameddiya Education Society’, registered
before the competent authority at Mumbai, and
therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent-
authorities under Section 39 of the Act is just and
proper, which does not call for interference in this writ
petition. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-Institution referred to the judgments as
stated above, however, the same cannot be accepted
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
on the sole ground that, the petitioner-
Institution/Society has committed a fraud against the
respondent-authorities while seeking recognition to run
the school in the premises in question.
22. Yet another ground to dismiss the petition is
that, this court, by order dated 02.02.2026 pass the
following interim order:
“Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has
served a copy of the writ petition along with Annexures on the
counsel appearing for the Caveator.
Submission is placed on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the
petitioner will not admit any students for the next academic year
without permission of the Court.
Undertaking is placed on record.
All further proceedings pursuant to impugned order(s), is
stayed till next date of hearing.
List this petition on 23.02.2026, in the ‘preliminary hearing
-B Group’.”
( underlined by me)
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
23. However, the perusal of the memo dated
24.03.2026 filed by the respondent No.7, would makes
it clear that the petitioner-Institution/Society, in the
name of Saamar International Islamic School has
opened admission to the students up to 7th standard,
stipulating the annual fee at Rs.16,500/-, Rs.20,000/-
for High School and also, demanding Rs.12,000 for
annual transportation fee from the students. The
aforementioned fact is undisputed as the same was
advertised in the Saalar Daily News Paper and copy of
the news paper is also enclosed. In that view of the
matter, as the petitioner -Institution has violated the
undertaken given before this Court and has started
admission of students, contrary to the undertaking
given before this court on 02.02.2026 and therefore, it
is a clear abuse of process of law by the petitioner-
Institution and as such, the writ petition has to be
dismissed with imposition of exemplary costs, in view
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
of the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Meghmala and others vs. G.
Narasimha Reddy and others reported in (2010) 8
SCC 383.
24. It also to be noted that, in view of the
declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd v. State Bank of
India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449, as the
petitioner-Institution has violated the interim order
passed by this Court and as such, the petitioner-
Institution is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in
this writ petition.
25. It is also forthcoming from the impugned
orders passed by the respondent-authorities would
indicate that, the criminal case has been lodged in
Crime No. 30 of 2026 for the offences punishable under
Section 318 (4), 336, 340 of BNS , 2023, by the
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20109
WP No. 2595 of 2026
HC-KAR
Kothanur police station. Taking into consideration of the
observation made above, I am of the view that, the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed by imposing cost
of Rs.25,000/- and same has to be payable to the
Kartnaka Legal Services Authorities, Bengaluru.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46