Dismissed

Raju Education Society Dpaka Gundopant Dist Nanded Thr President v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Aug 2012WP/6819/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged State Government permission granted to respondent to open a new primary school, alleging unhealthy competition. Court rejected challenge noting Apex Court had approved the permission and finding no substantiation of harm.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; permission to open school approved; pending civil application disposed of.

Raju Education Society Dpaka Gundopant Dist… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp6819.11

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6819 OF 2011

¶5

Raju Education Society .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. A. V. Patil, advocate holding for Mr. V. D. Gunale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. G. Nandedkar, AGP for the State.

¶9

Mr. V. S. Panpatte, advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶10

Mr. V. D. Salunke, advocate for respondent nos. 5 & 6.

¶11

=====

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & S. S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 30^th AUGUST, 2012.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Petitioner is seeking direction to respondents to close down respondent

¶15

no. 6 / school run by respondent no. 5 / institution. It is the contention of petitioner that respondent no. 6 / school is unauthorised and creating unhealthy competition between the existing primary schools and the new school in the village.

¶16

Petitioner, in the instant petition presented in the year 2011, is challenging permission accorded by the State Government in the year 2006 in favour of respondent no. 5 / institution to open a new primary school in the village. It is the contention of petitioner that because of opening of the new

¶17

wp6819.11

¶18

¶19

school, there is unhealthy competition amongst the existing schools and the newly opened school. The strength of students of petitioner / existing school has been affected. It is also contended that opening of the school was not recommended by the State Level Committee which, according to petitioner, is mandatory in terms of the Government Resolution.

¶20

We have considered the contentions raised by petitioner and heard arguments advanced on behalf of respondents. Apart from the fact that challenge is raised at belated stage, petitioner has not substantiated the contention that opening of new school has given rise to unhealty competition amongst the existing schools and new school in the village. It has not been demonstrated by petitioner as to how the strength of students of petitioner / school is affected because of opening of new school. Reliance placed by petitioner on the Government Resolution is also misplaced since the Government Resolution permits according of sanction on the basis of recommendation of one of the committees for opening new school wherever need is felt for opening new school. Apart from this aspect, permission accorded by State Government in favour of respondent / institution to open a new school was struck down in view of judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 2897/2006 which was subject matter of challenge in a group of petitions before the Apex Court. Respondent was also one of the petitioners before the Apex

¶21

wp6819.11

¶22

¶23

Court. The Apex Court set aside the judgment delivered in aforesaid petition and put a stamp of approval on the order passed by the State Government permitting opening of new school in the State. In this view of the matter, challenge raised in the instant petition does not deserve favourable consideration. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected.

¶24

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶25

( S. S. SHINDE, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶26

dyb

Raju Education Society Dpaka Gundopant Dist Nanded Thr President v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Education Society Dpaka Gundopant Dist Nanded Thr President v. the State of Maharshtra 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

Mahadu Tulshiram Bhadange Vs the State of Maharashstra and Ors.

Dr. Dattatraya Madhav Junnarkar Vs the Director of Public Health Services, Ms and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur(Under Gmidc Ltd) Vs Krishnadas Baburao Dande and Ors.

The Mah State Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Santosh Bhila Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Aba Bhika Jadhav Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.