Partly allowed

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarakk Mandal Shiradhon Dist Nanded through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Oct 2012WP/2543/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court addressed petitions challenging State Government refusal to approve Marathi/Urdu medium schools. Noting policy withdrawal and precedent, court restored proposals for fresh consideration. Issued directions for institutions to bring proposals in conformity with new law and mandated State decision within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitions partly allowed. Eight weeks granted to petitioners to remove infirmities in proposals. State directed to take fresh decision within four months and include SCHOOL places in master-plan.

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarakk Mandal Shiradhon Dist… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp2541.11.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2541 OF 2011

¶5

AND/WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs.2542/2011 & 2543/2011.

¶7

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Shiradhon, District Nanded, through its Secretary, Balaji Madhavrao Pandalage, age 45 years, occu. agri., r/o Shiradhon, Ta. Kandhar, District Nanded. ... PETITIONER

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

2 The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶11

3 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. ... RESPONDENTS.

¶12

Mr.V.D. Gunale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶13

AND/WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.2542/2011.

¶15

Rahemaniya Taleem Society,

¶16

{2} wp2541.11.odt

¶17

Nilanga, District Latur, through its Secretary, Farooq Ahmed Abdul Kadar Deshmukh, age 32 years, occu. social work, r/o Nilanga, Ta. Nilanga, District Latur. ... PETITIONER

¶18

Versus

¶19

1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶20

2 The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3 The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. ... RESPONDENTS.

¶21

Mr.V.D. Gunale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.G. Nandedkar, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶22

AND/WITH

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.2543/2011.

Versus

{3} wp2541.11.odt

1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶28

2 The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶29

3 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶30

... RESPONDENTS.

¶31

Mr.V.D. Gunale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B. Chaudhari, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶32

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶33

S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 16th October, 2012.

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):

¶35

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

¶36

2 Petitioners are the education Institutions desirous of opening Secondary/Primary Marathi/Urdu medium schools. Petitioners-Institutions tendered proposals with the State Government seeking permission to open Secondary/Primary Marathi/Urdu medium schools. However, proposals tendered by the petitioners-Institutions have been turned down by the State Government in view of the order passed on 04.06.2010. Petitioners

¶37

{4} wp2541.11.odt

¶38

are taking exception to the orders issued by the State Government refusing to consider proposals for opening Secondary/Primary Marathi/Urdu medium schools.

¶39

3 It is contended that the State Government turned down proposals tendered by the petitioners requesting to accord permission to open Marathi/Urdi medium schools, however, permission was accorded by the State Government to open Urdu and English medium schools. It has been brought to our notice that the policy decision taken by the State Government on 04.06.2010 has been withdrawn and statement to that effect has been recorded by this Court in Writ Petition No.7472/2010. It has also been disclosed that proposals for approval are restored for consideration in accordance with provisions of law. It is also submitted that reason given in the impugned order is referable to the Cabinet decision dated 16.06.2009 though the same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Asha Sevabhavi Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010(3) All M.R. 538. It has been pointed out that in June 2012, prospective plan has come into force in pursuance to the decision of the Full Bench in the matter of Shikshan Mandal and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2012(3) All M.R. 609. In view of unconditional withdrawal of the communication / order dated 04.06.2010, identical proposals are restored back to file by the State Government for fresh decision on the date on

¶40

{5} wp2541.11.odt

¶41

which judgment came to be delivered i.e. on 07.09.2010. Later judgment dated 12.10.2010 also notices this fact and grants time of six weeks to respective petitioners to supply further information and directs respondents to decide all pending applications by 31-3-2011.

¶42

4 Identical issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 60/2011 and 61/2011. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.07.2012 issued certain directions. Since instant petitions also involve identical issue, we deem it appropriate to adopt the view taken by the Division Bench in writ petitions cited supra and issue following directions :

¶43

(A) Since proposals submitted by the petitioners are old and may not be in conformity with new law or policy, we grant time of eight (8) weeks to remove lacuna/infirmities, if any, to bring the proposals in conformity with present position.

¶44

(B) Respondent / State shall take fresh decision in the matter within a period of four months thereafter i.e. after expiry of period of eight weeks.

¶45

¶46

wp2541.11.odt

¶47

(D) It is also to be ensured by the State Government that the places for which proposals have been tendered by the petitioners are included in the master-plan and if, the places are included in the master plan, the State may take cognizance of the proposals and pass suitable orders.

¶48

In case of grant of permission to Urdu Medium School it may not be necessary to insist for Master Plan / Perspective Plan or such plan is reportedly prepared by State Government for granting approval to open new Marathi Medium School in the State.

¶49

With these directions, petitions are partly allowed. Rule made partly absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

S.S.SHINDE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶51

plk/*

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarakk Mandal Shiradhon Dist Nanded through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarakk Mandal Shiradhon Dist Nanded through Secretary 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranav Rajendra Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ishwarlal Lalwani ( Jain ) HUF Vs Union of India through the Sec. Department of Revenue and Ors.

M/S Jeevanram Bijeram Agrawal ( HUF ) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sarafraj Alam Sikandar Alam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gangadhar Bhimrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.