Partly allowed

Swami Vivekanant Shikshan Prasrak Mandal Pathri v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2012WP/11752/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed state authorities to take a fresh decision on the petitioner's proposal for new schools, granting six weeks to cure deficiencies in alignment with new laws and policies, with a final decision required within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six weeks to remove lacunae; respondents directed to take a fresh decision on the proposal within four months.

Swami Vivekanant Shikshan Prasrak Mandal Pathri Vs… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1)

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 11752 of 2010

¶4

Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pathri, Taluka : Pathri, Dist. : Parbhani, Through its President, Munjaji Balaji Bhale Patil, Aged : 32 years, Occupation : Advocate, R/o. Pathri, Taluka : Pathri, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶7

The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶8

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. .. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶11

(2)

¶12

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

¶13

DATE : 10TH AUGUST 2012

¶14

COURT'S ORDER ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. ) :

¶15

Heard Adv. Mr. C.V. Thombre, for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. V.B. Ghatge, for the respondents.

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned respective counsel of the parties.

¶17

Our attention has been invited to the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7472, 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.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that as the impugned decision and policy dated 04.06.2010 were withdrawn and statement to that effect has been recoded by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7472 of 2010, order impugned before this Court, is no more in existence and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 of approval is already restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law. He submitted that in impugned order the reason given is of Cabinet decision dated 16.06.2009, though same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asha Sevabhavi

¶19

(3)

¶20

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

¶21

Learned AGP does not dispute the statement as recoded or 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. Sstate of Maharashtra and others reported in 2012(3) ALL M.R. 609.

¶22

It is apparent that in view of unconditional withdrawal of the communication/order dated 04.06.2010 of en bloc 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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(4)

¶26

the Full Bench Shikshan Mandal and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and 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.

¶27

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

¶28

Respondents shall take fresh decision in the matter within 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.

¶29

With these directions and observations we partly allow the petition. Rule made partly absolute. No costs.

¶30

(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

bgp/wp11752

Swami Vivekanant Shikshan Prasrak Mandal Pathri v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Vivekanant Shikshan Prasrak Mandal Pathri 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

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.

Ashok Bhagwanrao Pawar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kai Pundalikrao Tathe Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Aurangabad through President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Zakir Hussain Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Nanded Vs the State of Mah and Ors.