Remanded

Bhaiyya Saheb Y. Patil v. Narendra Education Trust through Shri Krushna N. Mishra

Bombay HC1 Feb 2012CAW/2127/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the withdrawal of a No Objection Certificate for school affiliation without a hearing. The Court held the decision violated natural justice, set it aside, and ordered reconsideration by the appropriate authority within one month.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication quashed; matter remanded to appropriate authority for reconsideration on merits within one month with notice to all parties.

Bhaiyya Saheb Y. Patil Vs Narendra Education… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

ca2127.5552.11

rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2127 OF 2011

¶7

 in
WRIT PETITION NO.5552 OF 2011

¶8

Narendra Education Trust

¶9

versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents

¶11

&.

¶12

Bhaiyya Saheb Yeshwant Patil
President of Khandesh Hit Sangram .. Applicant

¶13

Ms.Kumud Bhatia for Petitioner.
Mr.Kripashankar Mishra for Applicant
Ms.Ushaji Peri i.b. Mr.Mihir Desai for Respondent no.6
Mr.C.R.Sonawane A.G.P. for Respondent no.1

¶14

CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & N.M.JAMDAR, JJ

¶15

 1st February, 2012

¶16

P.C.

¶17

1. This application is filed by a third party for being
impleaded in the Writ Petition. The Applicant asserts that
the impugned order was passed against the petitioner at the
instance of the Applicant. For that reason, the Applicant
is not only proper but, necessary party to the writ
petition. We accept this argument.

¶18

 Application is allowed. The Writ Petitioner is directed

ca2127.5552.11

rng

to implead the Applicant as party-Respondent in the Writ
Petition. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner undertakes to do
so in the course of the day.

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.5552 of 2011

¶24

Narendra Education Trust

¶25

.. Petitioner

¶26

 versus

¶27

The State of Maharashtra &ors .. Respondents

¶28

P.C.

¶29

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties including the

¶30

newly added respondents.

¶31

2. Rule.

¶32

3. Mr.C.R.Sonawane A.G.P. waives notice for the State.

¶33

At the outset, we may place on record that the newly added
respondents agreed for final disposal of the Writ Petition
and requested that the averments made by him in the
application for intervention and documents accompanying
thereto may be considered at the time of hearing of this

ca2127.5552.11

rng

Writ Petition. We have no difficulty in accepting this
request.

¶38

4. The Writ Petition takes exception to the communication
received by the Petitioner from the Deputy Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra dated 16.6.2011 Exhibit C. The
same reads thus:

¶39

 Exhibit C

¶40

 GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

¶41

No.NMOC 20078 (773/07)SE-1

¶42

 School Education & Sports

¶43

Dept

¶44

 Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai-32

¶45

 Dt. 16.6.2011

¶46

To,

¶47

The Secretary,

¶48

Central Board of Secondary Education

¶49

Community Centre,Preet Vihar

¶50

New Delhi-110 092

¶51

Sub: To cancel NO objection certificate for
C.B.S.E. Affiliation to Narendra Convent School,
Deshmukh Complex,Tata Power House, Still
Road,Dombivli (East) Dist.Thane.

¶52

Dear Sir,

¶53

 The Government of Maharashtra,School Education and Sports
Department issued a No Objection Certificate for
affiliation to your board by means even No.Letter dt

ca2127.5552.11

rng

21.4.2008.

Itisalsoreferredtoyourl3etter
No.CBSC/AFFL/SL-00690-0910/2007-08 dt 15.11.2008 by this
letter you have rejected affiliation for CBSE Board to the
mentioned school.

¶59

The School Education Department, Government of
Maharashtra now decided to remove the NOC affiliation to
your board issued by this Government letter dt 21.4.2008.

¶60

Thanking you,

¶61

 With regards,

¶62

 Deputy Secretary,

¶63

Government of Maharashtra

¶64

5.The primary grievance of the Petitioner is that

¶65

although no objection certificate for affiliation was

¶66

granted in favour of the petitioner as on 21.4.2008 and
that the petitioner removed all the deficiencies pointed

¶67

out by the appropriate authority in due course without any

¶68

notice to the Petitioner the impugned communication came to
be issued by the Dy.Secretary for the reasons best known to

¶69

him. Grievance of the Petitioner in substance is that the

¶70

impugned communication which has the affect of withdrawing

¶71

no objection certificate operating in favour of the
Petitioner has been issued without observing principles of

¶72

natural justice and therefore, the same is vitiated. The

ca2127.5552.11

rng

fact that the petitioner was not heard by the concerned
authority or informed about the proposed action to be taken
against the Petitioner has not been denied in reply-
affidavit filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4. The only
justification offered in the reply-affidavit is that the
said management failed to remove the deficiences and
impugned decision was taken by the appropriate authority.

¶77

6. As regards the plea that the management failed to
remove the deficiencies it is noticed that the petitioner
had informed the Secretary, Central Board of Secondary
Education vide communication dt 25.11.2008 bringing to his
notice that all the deficiencies have been removed and it
was open to the appropriate authority to take inspection
and submit a report in that behalf. There is nothing in
the affidavit to suggest that such inspection was in fact

¶78

taken by the appropriate authority and only thereafter
opinion was formed that the deficiencies have still not
been removed. Assuming that such opinion was formed by the
appropriate authority, it was incumbent upon the authority
to communicate the said decision to the petitioner as also
consequence of not removing the deficiencies and inspite of
having given opportunity to do so. Nothing of this has
happened in the present case. No such stand is taken in the
reply-affidavit. Indeed, counsel for the board respondent
no.6 was at pains to point out that the petitioner was

ca2127.5552.11

rng

informed vide letter dt. 23.5.2011. But this intimation
appears to have been given after lapse of almost three
years from the date of intimation given by the Petitioner
to the Secretary of the Board i.e. 25.11.2008 Exhibit D. In
any case, no contemporaneous document is brought to our
notice to indicate that the Petitioner was duly served with
the notice that process of withdrawal of no objection for
affiliation is in contemplation, so as to give opportunity
to the Petitioner to offer its remark/explanation if any.
Moreover in our view the counsel for the Petitioner is
justified in assailing the impugned communication dt.
16.6.2011 having been issued soon after sending the
intimation to the Petitioner dt. 25.5.2011. The decision
making process is vitiated on account of non-compliance of
principles of natural justice. On this count alone, the
decision will have to be set aside and parties relegated
before the appropriate authority for re-consideration of
the issue regarding withdrawal of no objection for
affiliation issued to the Petitioner on 21.4.2008.

¶83

7. Needless to observe that the appropriate authority

¶84

shall not only give fair opportunity to the petitioner but
also consider the stand/objection of the newly added
Respondents if any in accordance with law.

¶85

8. All questions to be considered by the appropriate

¶86

rng 7 ca2127.5552.11

¶87

authority regarding continuing of no objection for
affiliation and/or withdrawal thereof will have to be
considered on its own merits in accordance with law. All
questions in that behalf are left open. The appropriate
authority shall consider the said issue expeditiously and
in any case not later than 1.3.2012 so that needful is done
before the next academic year.

¶88

 Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶89

(N.M.JAMDAR, J.)

Bhaiyya Saheb Y. Patil v. Narendra Education Trust through Shri Krushna N. Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaiyya Saheb Y. Patil v. Narendra Education Trust through Shri Krushna N. Mishra

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

Mr. Amol a. Gaikwad and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Shri. Mahadeo Balbhim Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Vasant Bapusaheb Magdum Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid

Shri. Birsingh Lachhiram Parchha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid