Allowed

Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Deotala through President B a Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2010WP/1502/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Commissioner lacked authority to reject the petitioner's proposal for Balak Ashrams. The court directed the State Government to grant immediate permission at the approved locations (Deotala and Sattardharwadi), as previous authorities had recommended the proposal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to grant permission to start Balak Ashrams at Deotala and Sattardharwadi forthwith. Rule made absolute.

Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Deotala… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1502 OF 2010

¶4

Anan	drao Naik Shikshan Prasarak	}
Man	dal, Deotala, Tq. : Ausa	}
Distr	ict Latur, through its President	}
Shri	Bhaurao S/o Anandrao Chavan	}
Age :	52 Years, Occ. Agril,	}
R/o :	Deotala, Tq. : Ausa	}
Distr	ict Latur	}	.... PETITIONER
	*V E R S U S*
1.	The State of Maharashtra	}
	Through its Secretary,	}
	Women & Child Development	}
	Department, Maharashtra State	}
	Mantralaya, Mumbai.	}
2.	The Commissioner for Women and	}
	Child Development,	}
	Maharashtra State ,	}
	Mantralaya, Mumbai.	}
3.	The District Women & Child	}
	Development Officer, Latur Parishad	}
	Latur.	}	.... RESPONDENTS
	Mr. N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar,, Ad	vocate	for petitioner.
	Mr. S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt.	Pleade	r for State.

¶5

¶6

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ.

¶7

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29/04/2010

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶9

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶10

The petitioner takes exception to the Order dated 16/10/2009 passed by the respondent no. 2 thereby invalidating the proposal of the petitioner for permission and recognition to start two separate Balak Ashrams namely (i) Sudarshan Balak Ashram at Deotala and (ii) Sudarshan Balak Ashram at Sattardharwadi, Tq. Ausa, Districtir Latur.

¶11

Initially, respondent no. 3 after receipt of the said two proposals inspected the site and building of the proposed Balak Ashrams and was satisfied with all the amenities therein, as such forwarded the same with his recommendation to the respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 in turn after satisfying itself, forwarded it to respondent no. 1 for final decision. The State Govt. by its orders dated 1/11/2008 and 10/11/2008 granted permission in favour of the petitioner Trust for starting two Balak Ashram Schools, but at Osmanabad and not at the place applied by the petitioner. As such, the

¶12

¶13

petitioner had filed Writ Petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 4654 of 2009. This Court vide its order dated 18/8/2009 was pleased to set aside the said order of the State Govt. for granting permission at Osmanabad instead at the sites proposed by the petitioner. This Court further directed the respondents to pass orders in accordance with law by re-examining the proposal of the petitioner.

¶14

The respondent no. 1 ought to have taken a final decision as per the directions of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4654 of 2009, but instead the respondent no. 2, who had earlier recommended the proposal of the petitioner, passed an order on 16/10/2009 rejecting the proposal of the petitioner to start Balak Ashram at Sattardharwadi and Deotala, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. This order is impugned by the petitioner in the present petitioner.

¶15

Mr. N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar has contended that the

¶16

respondent no. 2 does not have authority to take any final decision on the proposal of the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 is only authorized to forward the proposal to the respondent no. 1. Earlier respondent no. 2 had forwarded the said proposal to the respondent no. 1. After the matter was referred back by this Court, it was expected that the respondent no. 1 would take decision on the same, but the respondent no. 2 assumed the jurisdiction which was not vested in it and has passed the impugned order rejecting the proposal of the petitioner. The

¶17

¶18

learned Assistant Govt. Pleader tried to support the order passed by respondent no. 2 on the ground that there are already Balak Ashram in existence at the place where the petitioner has sought permission and there is no existing place to start Balak Ashrat at the said place.

¶19

It is a fact that respondent no. 2 does not have any authority to take any final decision on the proposal, the said authority vests with respondent no. 1. In such circumstances, respondent no. 2 could not have assumed jurisdiction and could not have passed the impugned order. Earlier, respondent no. 1 had granted permission to the petitioner but had wrongly mentioned that the permission is granted at Osmabnabad instead of the place where the petitioner had proposed. After the orders were passed by this Court, it was expected that the respondent no. 1 should take an appropriate decision in this regard.

¶20

In view of the fact that respondent no. 2 did not have any authority to pass impugned orders and further in view of the fact that earlier respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 2 had already recommended the proposal of the petitioner to start Balak Ashram at Sattardharwadi and Deotala, we direct respondent no. 1 to grant permission to the petitioner to start Balak Ashram at Deotala and Sattardharwadi forthwith.

¶21

¶22

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no

¶23

order as to costs.

¶24

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ]

¶25

JUDGE knp/WP 1502.10 ( J )

¶26

JUDGE

Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Deotala through President B a Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Deotala through President B a Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Yogesh Uttamrao Sathe and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sheshrao Khiraji Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suryabhan Asraji Dhumal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suraj Surendra Udan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Adhunik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Aurangabad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mathurabailaxman Lokhande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.