Allowed

Shri Durgamata Bahuudeshiya Sports and Educational Institutions v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2011WP/736/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an order granting a Girls Military School to one institution without hearing others. The Court directed the Committee to re-evaluate all applicants' facilities, ensure expert presence, provide a hearing to all, and allot the school to the highest scorer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Committee directed to re-evaluate facilities with experts presence, afford hearing to all, and allot school to highest scorer.

Shri Durgamata Bahuudeshiya Sports and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

wp736-3743-11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 736 OF 2011

¶5

Shri Durgamata Bahu-uddeshiya Sports
and Educational Institutions PETITIONER
VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 3743 OF 2011

¶9

Shri Baliraja Shikshan Sanstha,
Someshwar

¶10

 PETITIONER

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶13

 RESPONDENTS

¶14

.....
Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the Petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 736/2011.

¶15

Mr. S.U. Jaigude, advocate holding for Mr. C.K.
Shinde, advocate for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No. 3743/2011.
Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State
in both the Writ Petitions.
Mr. S.B. Talekar, advocate for the Respondent
No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 736/2011 and for the
Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 3743/2011.

¶16

.....

¶17

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
 M.T. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 26th AUGUST, 2011

¶18

ORAL ORDER:

¶19

1.Both these petitions challenge the order
dated 20th October, 2010, passed by the Respondent

¶20

wp736-3743-11

¶21

No. 1 whereby the permission is granted to the
respondent - Shri Sai Pratishthan, Loha to start
Girls Military School at village Sunegaon, Tq. Loha.

¶22

2.The Government had invited the proposals for
opening Girls Military School in Nanded Region. The
petitioners as well as the aforestated respondent -
Pratishthan and 22 other Institutions had applied for
the said purpose. Initially, the Committee as
constituted under the Govt. Resolution dated 26th
October, 1995 had found that the petitioners had
secured 67 marks whereas the respondent in whose
favour now allotment is being done, has secured 45
marks. However, it appears that the Government
thereafter directed the said Committee to re-evaluate
the proposals after fresh inspection. Though there
are certain allegations by the petitioners that this
was done at the behest of the then Hon'ble Chief
Minister. We do not want to go into that aspect of

¶23

the matter in view of the order that we now propose
to pass.

¶24

3.The impugned order would reveal that the

¶25

same does not give reasons as to why it has been

¶26

(3)

¶27

wp736-3743-11

¶28

found that the Respondent - Shri Sai Pratishthan,
Loha is entitled to be given the permission to start
the Girls Military School. It would further be seen
that an opportunity of hearing was not given to the
concerned parties to represent their respective case
before the order impugned was passed.

¶29

4.The petitioners as well as the aforestated
respondent - Pratishthan have filed purshis on record
stating therein that in the interest of justice, they

¶30

do not have objection if the impugned order is

¶31

quashed and set aside and the Committee as
constituted under the Govt. Resolution dated 26th
September, 1995 be directed to re-inspect the
facilities of the applicants and thereafter, pass the
orders after hearing all the applicants.

¶32

5.We, therefore, pass the following order :

¶33

(i)The impugned order dated 20th October, 2010

¶34

is quashed and set aside.

¶35

(ii)The Committee as constituted as per

¶36

Government Resolution dated 26th September, 1995
shall re-visit the proposed Schools/Institutions and

¶37

(4)

¶38

wp736-3743-11

¶39

do the evaluation of the facilities available with

¶40

all the applicants in accordance with the parameters
laid down in the Circular dated 27th July, 2010. It

¶41

is, however, made clear that when the inspection of
the facilities available with the Institutions/
Schools of the applicants will be carried out by the
Committee, the presence of the persons of the
Committee at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 shall be mandatory,

¶42

inasmuch as these are the persons who are experts in
the field of Military Education. The said Committee
shall complete the inspection as far as possible
within a period of three months from today.

¶43

(iii)It is further directed that the said

¶44

Committee shall give an opportunity of hearing to all
the applicants.

¶45

(iv)After the Committee inspects the facilities

¶46

and hears the parties, the Committee shall also

¶47

record its reasons for the evaluation that would be
carried out by it. It is further directed that after

¶48

the said Committee submits its report to the
Government, the Government shall pass an order
allotting the Girls Military School to the applicant

¶49

wp736-3743-11

¶50

(5)

¶51

who has secured highest marks as per the evaluation

¶52

of the facilities.

¶53

(v)With the above directions, both the Writ

¶54

Petitions are disposed of.

¶55

6.In view of disposal of the Writ Petitions,

¶56

Civil Application No. 6259/2011 (in Writ Petition No.
736/2011) does not survive and hence, stands disposed
of accordingly.

¶57

 [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]

¶58

npj/wp736-3743-11

Shri Durgamata Bahuudeshiya Sports and Educational Institutions v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Durgamata Bahuudeshiya Sports and Educational Institutions 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

Parwatabai Shankar Pamalwad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bharat Lotan Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited Jodtala Tq Dist Hingoli through Chairman and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pranita Baburao Palekar Vs State of Mah and Anr.

Prashant Ramrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Machindra Baburao Kakde Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.