Disposed

Adishakati Kulswamini Tuljabhavani Bahu Uddeshiya Gramin Vikas Sanstha Thor. Pandurang Trimbak Pati v. the State of Maharashtra, and Anothers

Bombay HC9 May 2012WP/5942/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought permission to establish a Balak Asharam. The Respondent rejected the proposal citing unavailability of infrastructural facilities and saturation of existing institutions. The court recorded observations on the matter and disposed of the petition without a detailed order on the rejection.

What the court decided

AI extract

Adishakati Kulswamini Tuljabhavani Bahu Uddeshiya… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

WP5942-10

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.: 5942 OF 2010

¶6

Adishakti Kulswamini Tuljabhavani Bahu
Uddeshiya Gramin Vikas Sanstha at Dhamangaon
Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

***

¶9

Mr. G. L. Awale, Advocate h/f Mr. N. P. Patil
Jamalpurkar, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. B. Chaudhari, A.G.P. for the Respondent
State Authorities.

¶10

***

¶11

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & S. B. DESHMUKH,JJ. DATED: 9th MAY, 2012 .

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1.The petitioner filed proposal for

¶14

starting a Balak Asharam at Osmanabad. The

¶15

petitioner's contention is that his proposal

¶16

was forwarded by the Commissioner to the State
Government. A proposed master plan was also

¶17

submitted for sanction of the State
Government.

¶18

2.In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf

¶19

of Respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is submitted the

¶20

proper infrastructural facilities are not
available with the petitioner institution. It

¶21

WP5942-10

¶22

-:(2):-

¶23

is further submitted that unless the master

¶24

plan is approved by the Government
advertisement is issued, applications for
opening new Balak Asharams cannot be
considered. The proposal of the petitioner

¶25

has been rejected accordingly and intimated to
the petitioner on 12th July, 2010. At present
there are 92 Balak Asharams in existence which
are sufficient in number.

¶26

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitsthatthepetitionerhas

¶27

infrastructural facilities. He has 1200

¶28

Sq.ft. constructed building with proposed

¶29

construction plan of 4700 Sq.Ft. Petitioner
has facility of water, electricity and
reasonable bank balance.

¶30

4.We observe that on State's publishing the
muster plan for the purpose of establishing
Balak Asharams, in accordance with the master
plan, the petitioner is entitled to submit a
fresh proposal. With these observations the
petition is disposed of.

¶31

 [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL J.]
Dt.09/05/2012
ans/WP5942-10

Adishakati Kulswamini Tuljabhavani Bahu Uddeshiya Gramin Vikas Sanstha Thor. Pandurang Trimbak Pati v. the State of Maharashtra, and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Adishakati Kulswamini Tuljabhavani Bahu Uddeshiya Gramin Vikas Sanstha Thor. Pandurang Trimbak Pati v. the State of Maharashtra, and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Ramchandrarao Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Ishwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Angad Laxman More and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sudam Eknath Deore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Deepak Pradip Solanke Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sant Savata Sarvajanik Watchanalaya Vs the State of Maharashtra