Partly allowed

Neminath Maharaj Bahuuddeshiya Educational and Cultural Mandal v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2012WP/11660/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent State to take a fresh decision on the petitioner's proposal regarding admission/establishment matters. The court granted the petitioner six weeks to cure infirmities in the proposal to conform to current laws and policies, including the Right to Free Education Act, 2009 and the Full Bench judgment in Shikshan Mandal. A final decision is to be rendered within

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six weeks to cure infirmities in proposal; respondents directed to take fresh decision within four months thereafter considering RTEE Act 2009 and master plan.

Neminath Maharaj Bahuuddeshiya Educational and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1)

¶2

WP-11660.10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

Writ Petition No. 11660 of 2010

¶5

Shri Neminath Maharaj Bahuddeshiya Cultural Mandal, Pimpalgaon Kuda, Taluka Sindkhed Raja, Dist. Buldhana through its President Deepak s/o Sitaram Kude, age 31 years, occup. President, r/of Jijamata Vidyalaya, Tq. and Dist. Jalna.

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors. Respondents

¶9

¶10

Shri S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate, for Petitioner Shri K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶12

DATE : AUG. 9, 2012

¶13

Oral Order (Per: Dharmadhikari, J.)

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent

¶15

of learned respective counsel for respective parties.

¶16

WP-11660.10

¶17

(2)

¶18

Our attention has been invited to the orders of this Court in Writ

¶19

Petition No. 7412, 4493 of 2010 dated 07.09.2010, particularly paragraph no. 17 thereof and the judgment dated 12.10.2010 in Writ petition No.9650 of 2010.

¶20

Learned respective Counsel state that as the impugned decision and

¶21

policy dated 04.06.2010 were withdrawn and statement to that effect has been recoded by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7472 of 2010, order impugned before this Court is no more in existence and proposal for approval is already restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶22

They submitted that in impugned order the reason given is of Cabinet decision dated 16.06.2009, though the same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asha Sevabhavi Sanstha Vs. State

¶23

of Maharashtra reported in 2010(3) All M.R. 538 .

¶24

Learned AGP does not dispute the statement as recoded or

¶25

judgments as delivered. However, he points out that in June 2012 prospective plan has come into force. He also relies upon the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Shikshan Mandal and others Vs. State of

¶26

Maharashtra and others reported in 2012(3) ALL M.R. 609.

¶27

(3)

¶28

WP-11660.10

¶29

It is apparent that in view of unconditional withdrawal of the communication/order dated 04.06.2010 of enbloc rejection of proposals, proposal of present petitioner is already restored back to file by the Government for its fresh decision on the date on which, judgment came to be delivered i.e. on 07.09.2010. Later judgment dated 12.10.2010 also notices this fact and grants petitioner time of six weeks to supply further information and directed the respondents to decide all pending applications by 31.03.2011.

¶30

It is not in dispute, that as yet no decision has been taken on the said proposal.

¶31

In this situation, as proposal is already restored back to file, we direct respondents to take fresh decision upon the same by looking into proposal in accordance with law. Needless to mention that as decision is being taken in academic year 2012-2013, benefit, if any, thereof may become available to the petitioner, if found eligible, from next academic year 2013-2014. The provisions of Central enactment namely Right to Free Education to the Children Act 2009, subsequent law as explained by the Full Bench Shikshan Mandal and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶32

(4)

¶33

WP-11660.10

¶34

others reported in 2012(3) ALL M.R. 609 and master plan, if any, prepared in pursuance thereof shall all be looked into by the respondents before taking said decision.

¶35

As proposal submitted by the petitioner is old and may not be in

¶36

conformity with new law or policy, we grant petitioner time of six weeks to remove lacuna-infirmities, if any, to bring its proposal in conformity with present position.

¶37

Respondents shall take fresh decision in the matter within

¶38

further period of four months after expiry of said period of six weeks. If respondents find it necessary to hear the petitioner, it will be open to them to do so.

¶39

With these directions and observations we partly allow the

¶40

petition. Rule made absolute, accordingly. No costs.

¶41

(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶42

(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶43

pnd/WP-11660.10

Neminath Maharaj Bahuuddeshiya Educational and Cultural Mandal v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neminath Maharaj Bahuuddeshiya Educational and Cultural 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaha Masthan Bademiya Vs the Msrtc through Divisional Controller Aurangabad and Ors.

Pravin Shivram Kadam Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vetaleshwar Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sanstha Marayadit and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pramod Shriram Salunke Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shridatta Plastic Industries Thr Proprietor Vs the State of Maharashtra Andors

Laxman Sahebrao Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.