Allowed

Shiveshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jun 2009WP/3663/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court decided four concentrated Writ Petitions filed by Shiveshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal seeking directions for expeditious consideration of their proposals to open primary, secondary, and higher secondary schools in Aurangabad district. The Court granted relief to decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to decide the petitioners' proposals seeking permission to open Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools within six weeks from the date of this order.

Shiveshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3663 OF 2009

¶5

Shiveshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Waki, Through it’s President
Tukaram s/o Bandu Wagh,
Age 45 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Waki, Tq. Kannad,
Dist. Aurangabad..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶8

2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune

¶9

3. The Deputy Director Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

¶10

4. The Education Officer (Higher Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner;
Mr V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondents.

¶12

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.3664 OF 2009

¶15

Shiveshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Waki, Through it’s President
Tukaram s/o Bandu Wagh,
Age 45 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Waki, Tq. Kannad,
Dist. Aurangabad..PETITIONER

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶18

2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune

¶19

3. The Deputy Director Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

¶20

4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS

¶21

Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondents.

¶22

WITH

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.3665 OF 2009

¶24

Shiveshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Waki, Through it’s President
Tukaram s/o Bandu Wagh,
Age 45 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Waki, Tq. Kannad,
Dist. Aurangabad..PETITIONER

¶25

¶26

VERSUS

¶27

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶28

2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune

¶29

3. The Deputy Director Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

¶30

4. The Education Officer (Higher Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS

¶31

Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner;
Mr V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondents.

¶32

WITH

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO.3666 OF 2009

¶34

Shiveshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Waki, Through it’s President
Tukaram s/o Bandu Wagh,
Age 45 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Waki, Tq. Kannad,
Dist. Aurangabad..PETITIONER

¶35

VERSUS

¶36

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶37

¶38

2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune

¶39

3. The Deputy Director Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

¶40

4. The Education Officer (Higher Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS

¶41

Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner;
Mr V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondents.

¶42

CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND

¶43

R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶44

 DATE : 19th JUNE, 2009.

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.]

¶46

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned Counsel for the parties these petitions
are heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶47

2.Since the nature of relief which is sought for by the
petitioners in all these petitions is similar, according to
us these petitions can be decided by this common judgment.

¶48

3.Undisputedly the petitioners herein had submitted a
proposal to the respondents seeking permission to open
Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools in
Aurangabad District on permanent non grant basis pursuant to
an advertisement which was published in the local newspaper.

¶49

¶50

According to the petitioners, the aforesaid proposals are
pending consideration before the respondents and have not
been decided. Shri Thombre, learned Counsel for the
petitioners that the only relief which the petitioners are
seeking in these petitions is to direct the respondents to
expeditiously decide the pending proposals of the
petitioners. In the light of the limited relief which is
sought for by the petitioners in these petitions, we deem it
appropriate to decide these petitions finally at the stage
of admission.

¶51

4.Undisputedly the said proposals are pending
consideration before the respondents and have not been
decided though they were submitted sometime in May, 2008.
In the light of that, therefore, we direct the respondents
to decide the said proposals in accordance with law, within
six weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to
the petitioners.

¶52

5. Rule is made absolute in these petitions on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs.

¶53

amj/wp3663.09

¶54

Shiveshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiveshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagirunnisa Syed Dawood Vs the Zilla Parishad Beed Thr CEO and Ors.

Niranjan Prakash Pande and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Lal Mohammad Jafarmiya Jahagirdar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raghunathrao Sheshrao Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sau.Madhuri Nilkanth Phalak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nagorao Kamaji Sonwane and Ors. Vs the State of Mah