Disposed

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

Bombay HC8 May 2012WP/7942/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the Board regarding the refund of late fees. The Court directed the Board to consider the representation and pass an order within eight weeks after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation; direction to the Board to consider the representation, hear the petitioner, and decide on refund within eight weeks.

Ishwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 7942 OF 2009

¶3

ISHWAR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

¶4

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.S.Munde h/f Shri D.N.Suryawanshi AGP for Respondents: Shri V.B.Ghadge Advocate for Respondents : Shri A.R.Nikam

¶5

... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S. B. DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: May 08, 2012

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

Heard counsel.

¶8

The petitioner seeks direction to respondent - Board for refund of late fees charged by the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1258 of 2008, dated 19.8.2008 (Coram : F.I.Rebello & K.U.Chandiwal, JJ.), Writ Petition No.5667 of 2008, Dated 8.10.2008 (Coram : N.V.Dabholkar & N.D.Deshpande, JJ.) and other orders which are placed on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by communication dated 3.8.2006, permission granted by the State to run the Secondary and Higher Secondary School was cancelled. There was litigation on this issue. By communication dated 12.11.2007, the respondent - Board permitted the petitioner to run the school. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the forms were deposited in time with the Board but still the Board has charged the late fees.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent - Board has placed reliance on the undertaking given by the petitioner showing readiness to deposit the

¶11

akl

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶13

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 7942 OF 2009

¶15

late fees. The Board, accordingly charged late fees and expenses accrued for the bar code purposes.

¶16

We have perused the orders passed by the High Court, which are annexed to the petition. Learned counsel placed reliance on the communication made by the State on 26.7.2007 directing not to charge the late fees.

¶17

In the facts of the case, we find it appropriate that the petitioner is entitled to file a comprehensive representation to the Board within four weeks from today. In case such a representation is filed by the petitioner, we direct the respondent - Board to consider the same and after hearing the representative of the petitioner, to pass an appropriate order on the said representation in respect of refund of the late fees. The respondent - Bord shall take the final decision on the representation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the same.

¶18

With above directions, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶19

( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. ) ...

¶20

akl

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Muktabai Sopanrao Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Muktabai Sopanrao Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Balasaheb Thorat Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

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

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

Gulabrao Nagorao Gangane Vs the State of Maharashtra Thro Secretary and Ors.