Disposed

Gurukul Bahuuddeshiya Pratisthan Dhule through Chairman B N Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Feb 2012WP/959/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Bombay Aurangabad Bench, hearing multiple writ petitions from NGOs running residential ashram schools for Scheduled Caste children, declined to direct the State to forward unrecognized school proposals to the Central Government for grant-in-aid. The Court held that petitioners must first obtain recognition from the State under applicable education rules before their applications

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed. Petitioners directed to apply for recognition to run primary schools before filing proposals for central aid.

Gurukul Bahuuddeshiya Pratisthan Dhule… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp7658.09

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.7658 OF 2009

¶6

Shri. N.K. Patil Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha,
Amalner, Dist-Jalgaon,
Through its Chairman
Shri Narendra Keshavrao Patil,
R/o-Keshav Kunj, Sheni Mandir Galli,
New Plot Area, Amalner,
Dist-Jalgaon 425 401.

¶7

...PETITIONER.

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶10

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶11

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer, Jalgaon,

¶12

4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS.

¶14

wp7658.09

¶15

¶16

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...

¶17

WITH

¶18

 WRIT PETITION NO.7668 OF 2009

¶19

Chaitannya Seva Ashram Parola,
Tq-Parola, Dist-Jalgaon,
Through its Chairman,
Shri. Bhatu s/o Nathu Patil,
R/o-Dheku Road, Amalner,
Dist-Jalgaon.

¶20

...PETITIONER.

¶21

 VERSUS

¶22

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶23

2) The Director of Social Welfare,
 M.S. Pune-1,
3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Jalgaon,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS.

¶25

wp7658.09

¶26

¶27

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.

¶28

...

¶29

 WITH

¶30

 WRIT PETITION NO.7674 OF 2009

¶31

Annasaheb Digambar Patil Bahuuddeshiya
Sanstha, Dhule, Dist-Dhule,
Through its Chairman,
Shri. Bharat Digambar Patil,
R/o-Keshav Nagar, Amalner,
Dist-Jalgaon.

¶32

...PETITIONER.
 VERSUS

¶33

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶34

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶35

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Jalgaon,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶36

wp7658.09

¶37

¶38

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.

¶39

...

¶40

WITH

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO.7685 OF 2009

¶42

Shri. Aabasaheb B.S. Patil Bahuuddeshiya
Shaikshanik Sanstha, Dhule, Tq. & Dist-Dhule,
Through its Chairman,
Shri. Rajendra Pundalik Chamangale,
R/o-Amalner, Dist-Jalgaon.

¶43

...PETITIONER.

¶44

 VERSUS

¶45

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶46

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶47

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer, Jalgaon,

¶48

4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶49

wp7658.09

¶50

¶51

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...

¶52

WITH

¶53

 WRIT PETITION NO.7686 OF 2009

¶54

Dnyanoddhar Shikshan Mandal, Wavade,
Tq-Amalner, Dist-Jalgaon,
Through its Chairman,
Shri. Adhikar Amrutrao Wankhede,
R/o. A/p.Wavade, Tq-Amalner,
Dist-Jalgaon.

¶55

...PETITIONER.

¶56

VERSUS

¶57

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶58

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶59

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer, Jalgaon,

¶60

4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶61

wp7658.09

¶62

¶63

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...

¶64

WITH

¶65

 WRIT PETITION NO.958 OF 2010

¶66

Gurukul Bahuuddeshiya Pratisthan
Dhule, Dist-Dhule,
Through its Chairman,
Shri. Bhatu s/o Nathu Patil,
R/o-Dheku Road, Amalner,
Dist-Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER.

¶67

 VERSUS

¶68

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶69

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶70

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Jalgaon,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶71

wp7658.09

¶72

¶73

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...

¶74

WITH

¶75

 WRIT PETITION NO.959 OF 2010

¶76

Gurukul Bahuuddeshiya Pratisthan
Dhule, Dist-Dhule,
Through its Chairman,
Shri. Bhatu s/o Nathu Patil,
R/o-Dheku Road, Amalner,
Dist-Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER.

¶77

 VERSUS

¶78

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶79

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶80

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Jalgaon,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶81

wp7658.09

¶82

¶83

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...

¶84

WITH

¶85

 WRIT PETITION NO.960 OF 2010

¶86

Shri Anna Saheb Nathu Rupla Patil
Shekshainik Sanstha Dhule, Dist-Dhule,
Through its Chairman,
Shri. Bhatu s/o Nathu Patil,
R/o-Dheku Road, Amalner,
Dist-Jalgaon.

¶87

...PETITIONER.
 VERSUS

¶88

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶89

2) The Director of Social Welfare,
 M.S. Pune-1,
3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Jalgaon,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶90

...RESPONDENTS.

¶91

wp7658.09

¶92

¶93

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...

¶94

WITH

¶95

 WRIT PETITION NO.1529 OF 2010

¶96

Adarsha Samajik Vikas Sanstha, Patonda
Tq-Amalner, Dist-Dhule,
Through its Chairman,
Shri. Uday Nandkishor Patil,
R/o- A/p- Amalgaon, Tq-Amalner,
Dist-Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER.

¶97

 VERSUS

¶98

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶99

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶100

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Jalgaon,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶101

wp7658.09

¶102

¶103

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...

¶104

WITH

¶105

 WRIT PETITION NO.1530 OF 2010

¶106

Gurukul Bahuuddeshiya Pratisthan
Dhule, Dist-Dhule,
Through its Chairman,
Shri. Bhatu s/o Nathu Patil,
R/o-Dheku Road, Amalner,
Dist-Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER.

¶107

 VERSUS

¶108

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶109

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶110

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Jalgaon,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶111

wp7658.09

¶112

¶113

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...
WITH

¶114

 WRIT PETITION NO.4664 OF 2011

¶115

Sai Shikshan Shaktivir Shivachari
Maharaj, Auserkar Bhau-Udeshiya Shivbhavi
Sanstha, Kilaji, Tq-Tuljapur,
Dist-Osmanabad,
Through its President,
Banduraj Ramrao Sarne,
R/o- At Post-Kilaji,
Tq-Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad.

¶116

...PETITIONER.
 VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶117

2) The Director of Social Welfare,
 M.S. Pune-1,
3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Osmanabad,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶118

...RESPONDENTS.

¶119

wp7658.09

¶120

¶121

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...
WITH

¶122

 WRIT PETITION NO.4671 OF 2011

¶123

Audumbar Seva Bhavi Sanstha,
Takali, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed,
Through its Secretary,
Udhav s/o Namdeo Padole,
At Post-Takli Amiya,
Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed.

¶124

...PETITIONER.

¶125

 VERSUS

¶126

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶127

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶128

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Beed,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶129

...RESPONDENTS.

¶130

wp7658.09

¶131

¶132

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...

¶133

WITH

¶134

 WRIT PETITION NO.4672 OF 2011

¶135

Shivmandir Sansthan Mahora,
Tq-Jafrabad, Dist-Jalna,
Through its President,
Naval Singh s/o Mansingh Rajput,
At Post-Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad,
Dist-Jalna.

¶136

...PETITIONER.

¶137

 VERSUS

¶138

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶139

2) The Director of Social Welfare,
 M.S. Pune-1,
3) The Special Social Welfare Officer,
 Jalna,
4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶140

wp7658.09

¶141

¶142

 ...
 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri. Alok Sharma Assistant Solicitor General
 for Respondent No.4.
 ...

¶143

WITH

¶144

 WRIT PETITION NO.4685 OF 2011

¶145

Shivmandir Sansthan Mahora,
Tq-Jafrabad, Dist-Jalna,
Through its President,
Naval Singh s/o Mansingh Rajput,
At Post-Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad,
Dist-Jalna.

¶146

...PETITIONER.

¶147

 VERSUS

¶148

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Principal Secretary,
 Social Justice and Special
 Assistance Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,

¶149

2) The Director of Social Welfare, M.S. Pune-1,

¶150

3) The Special Social Welfare Officer, Jalna,

¶151

4) The Union of India,
 (Through its Secretary
 Ministry of Social Justice and
 Empowerment),
 Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶152

wp7658.09

¶153

¶154

...

¶155

 Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.

¶156

 Shri. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Standing Counsel
 for Respondent No.4.

¶157

...

¶158

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.

¶159

 ORDER RESERVED ON : 23RD JANUARY, 2012.
 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶160

ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] :

¶161

1.The Petitioners in these Petitions raise
identical issue. These Petitions are heard
together, and disposed of by a common order.

¶162

2.The Petitioners claim to be running
primary residential ashram schools for children
belonging to Scheduled Caste. As per the scheme
floated by the Central Government, a N.G.O. or
voluntary agency which desires to apply for grant-
in-aid, has to apply in a prescribed proforma to
the authority designated for the said purpose to

¶163

wp7658.09

¶164

¶165

the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Government of India. These applications are to be
processed and forwarded by the State to the
Central Agency. The grant-in-aid under the scheme
would be released after the proposal is sanctioned
by the appropriate authority of the Ministry of
Government of India. Clause VII of the said scheme
refers to method of 'APPLICATION' as under:

¶166

"7.1. An organization desirous
to apply for grant-in-aid under
this scheme will send its
application in the relevant
prescribed proforma (Annexures-
I-III) through an authority or
body designated below for this
purpose by the Ministry of
SocialJusticeand

¶167

Empowerment:-

¶168

(a) Through the Secretary
ofSocialWelfare
Department/SC,STWelfare
Department of the concerned

¶169

wp7658.09

¶170

¶171

StateGovernment/Union
Territory Administration;
and or

¶172

(b) Through any of the
Institutespecifiedin
Annexure-V as amended from
time to time, nearer to the
location of the project
already being implemented
orproposedtobe
implemented.

¶173

7.2. The above prescribed
agency will send its inspection
reportin the prescribed
proforma (Annexure - IV(a),
IV(b),IV(c)withits
recommendation within one month
ofthereceiptofan
application from the voluntary
organization. The Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment
will process proposal within
one month of the receipt of the
inspection report and the
recommendation.

¶174

wp7658.09

¶175

¶176

7.3. Organisations covered
under 3.1 (ii) shall file
applicationforrelease
depending on number of training
vacancies assigned to an
organisation for the year."

¶177

3.The Petitioners state that they filed
proposals with the respective Special District
Social Welfare Officers of the Districts, which
were recommended to the Director of Social Welfare

¶178

of the Maharashtra State. The inspection of the
schools was also carried out before the proposals
were forwarded by the Special District Social
Welfare Officer. The Petitioners contend that the
Director, Social Welfare Office, Maharashtra
State, Pune forwarded several proposals including
the proposals of the Petitioners, for the
consideration of the State.

¶179

4.It is contended by the Petitioners that

¶180

wp7658.09

¶181

¶182

the Secretary to Government, Social Justice and
Special Assistance, had convened one day workshop
at Mumbai on 29th August, 2009, in which it was
decided not to forward proposals of the schools
which had not obtained permission/ recognition
from the State Government. Accordingly the
Director, Social Welfare, Maharashtra State,
issued instructions to close down the residential
schools run for Scheduled Caste's children in the
respective Districts, which were being run without
permission/ recognition from the State Government.
It was directed that attention of the Education
Officer (Primary/ Secondary) should be invited to
such cases, who should take necessary action
against unauthorized schools and submit compliance
report. As the Special District Social Welfare
Officer directed to close down the residential
ashram schools, the Petitioners approached the
High Court.

¶183

The Petitioners mainly pray for quashing

¶184

5.

¶185

wp7658.09

¶186

¶187

and setting aside directions issued by the

¶188

Director of Social Welfare, for closing down such
schools and for forwarding their applications/
proposals to the Central Agency for grant-in-aid.

¶189

6.Consequent to the notice issued, reply
was filed by the State.

¶190

7.It seems that under the interim orders

¶191

passed by this Court, these primary schools are
being run.

¶192

8.Shri. Talekar, learned counsel appearing

¶193

for the Petitioners, in substance, submitted that
State Government had received hundreds of
proposals and many of such proposals were
forwarded to the Central Government, but the
proposals of the Petitioners were not forwarded,

¶194

for the best reasons known to the State

¶195

Government. It is submitted that the proposals of
politically heavy-weights were forwarded and the

¶196

wp7658.09

¶197

¶198

State adopted unreasonable criterias in forwarding
or with-holding of the proposals. The learned
counsel referred to Para 74 of the reported
Judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.
Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
and others, (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases, 1. Para
74 of the Judgment reads as under:

¶199

"74. It is thus clear that the

¶200

Central Government has considered the subject of secondary education and higher education at the national level . The Act of 1993 also requires Parliament to consider teachereducation system "throughout the country". NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal with applications for establishing new BEd colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view the 1993 Act and planned and coordinated development of teacher-education system in the

¶201

wp7658.09

¶202

¶203

country. It is neither open to
the State Government nor to a
university to consider the local
conditions or apply "State
policy"torefusesuch
permission. In fact, as held by
this Court in cases referred to
hereinabove,theState
Government has no power to
reject the prayer of an
institution or to overrule the
decision of NCTE. The action of
the State Government, therefore,

¶204

was contrary to law and has
rightly been set aside by the
High Court."

¶205

9.Learned counsel for the Petitioners

¶206

placed reliance on Rule 106 of the Bombay Primary

¶207

Education Rules, 1949. Based on the said
provisions, it was submitted that the Petitioners

¶208

were supposed to first start the primary schools

¶209

and thereafter seek recognition from the competent
authority. There is no nexus between Petitioners

¶210

running the schools without recognition and

¶211

wp7658.09

¶212

¶213

proposals being not forwarded to the Central
Government for central aid, according to the
counsel. The learned counsel submits that in
identical situation, the Division Bench of this
Court (CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI,
JJ.) by an order dated 12th July, 2011, in Writ
Petition No.7013 of 2007, had directed the State
Government to forward the proposals of the
respective Petitioners along with permission, to
the Central Government. The learned counsel
submits that identical orders be passed in these
Petitions.

¶214

10.Shri. Ghatge, the learned A.G.P. placed

¶215

reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf
of the State in some of the Petitions. The learned
A.G.P. referred to the order dated 28th February,
2003, passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court, Nagpur Bench (CORAM: V.C. DAGA & V.M.
KANADE, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.956 of 2003,
wherein while considering identical issue, the

¶216

wp7658.09

¶217

¶218

Division Bench has observed in Para 13, as under:

¶219

"13. In the above view of the
matter, we by mandatory order
direct the petitioners to stop
running their school from the
coming academic session. They
shall not run the school in
question unless they are armed
with prior permission and
recognition from the State
Government and respondent no.3
Board; in accordance with law.
The respondent no.2 is directed
to take action in pursuance of
this order to get this order
implemented."

¶220

11.It is submitted by the learned A.G.P.

¶221

that the Petitioners have no vested right to get
their proposals forwarded to the Central
Government. The Petitioners did not apply for
seeking recognition/ permission to run primary
schools in accordance with the provisions of the

¶222

wp7658.09

¶223

¶224

Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 and the Rules
framed thereunder, and even if the Petitioners had
applied, no permission or recognition till date
has been granted by the State/ its Authorities, to
thePetitionersschools.Therefore,an

¶225

unrecognized school is not entitled for
consideration by the State. The A.G.P. further
submitted that State has decided to prepare a
Master Plan for the said purposes. The State had
given no objection certificate to 288 proposals
which were forwarded to the Central Government,
out of which, 33 proposals were accepted by the

¶226

Central Government for financial aid. For
remaining 255 schools, the grant-in-aid proposal
was not sanctioned.

¶227

12.The learned A.G.P. further submitted that

¶228

the State had decided that unless and until Master
Plan of the ashram school for the purposes of the

¶229

Central Government Scheme is prepared and approved

¶230

by the State Government, no proposals should be

¶231

wp7658.09

¶232

¶233

accepted. The Master Plan is prepared by the
Director, Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune,
for the purposes of Central Government Scheme and
the same is under consideration of the State
Government, according to the learned A.G.P.

¶234

13.Shri. Sharma and Shri. Sagar-Killarikar,
learned counsel appearing for the Central
Government, submitted that the Central Government
considers the proposals in accordance with the
scheme framed by it. The Petitioners shall first
satisfy the basic criterias for getting their

¶235

proposals forwarded to the Central Government,
which the Petitioners have failed to satisfy.
Reliance was placed on the Government Resolution
dated 23rd April, 2008, wherein the State
Government had taken a decision in respect of the
policy adopted by the State for grant-in-aid by
the Central Agency.

¶236

14.We have perused the record placed before

¶237

wp7658.09

¶238

¶239

us and considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties. We have also perused the Judgments placed
before us. Rule 106 of the Bombay Primary
Education Rules, 1949 reads as under:

¶240

"[106.Applicationfor

¶241

recognition:- (1) subject to the
provisions of this rule, and
application for recognition of a
new private school shall be made
to the Competent Authority not
later than the first day of
November, of any year.

¶242

(2) Such application shall be
made after the school as
actually started functioning and
has been in existence for a
period of not less than three
months.

¶243

(3) The application shall be
accompanied by a statement in
the Form 'A' set out in Appendix

¶244

wp7658.09

¶245

¶246

'C' to these rules together with
an undertaking in writing that
the conditions of employment of
teachers in such private school
shall be as near as possible to
those specified in Schedule 'F'.

¶247

(4) The application shall state
the name and address of the
correspondent,andthe
management shall report any
change in such name and address
of the correspondent to the
Competent Authority as soon as
possible.]"

¶248

15.It was submitted that the recognition has

¶249

not been accorded to the primary schools which are
being run by the Petitioners. It was submitted on
behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioners are
runningtheschoolsunauthorizedly.The
Petitioners did not obtain recognition from the
State, before submitting proposals for getting
grant-in-aid from the Central Government.

¶250

wp7658.09

¶251

¶252

16.The State Government had, earlier,

¶253

forwarded 288 proposals, out of which 33 proposals
were sanctioned by the Central Government. The
State had adopted a stand that the Master Plan is

¶254

being prepared for the said purposes and deserving
cases will be considered in accordance with the
Master Plan, for giving no objection certificate
for forwarding it to the Central Government.
Meaning thereby, that Petitioners proposals could
be subject to the condition of getting recognition
and preparation of the Master Plan, which would be
applicable to the entire State.

¶255

17.The schools which are being run by the

¶256

Petitioners for the purposes, are not recognized
by the State so far. The Petitioners did not get

¶257

recognition from the State inspite of the plea
that they are running the schools since last more

¶258

than 2 to 3 years.

¶259

wp7658.09

¶260

¶261

18.The Petitioners had prayed for following

¶262

the order passed the Division Bench of this Court

¶263

(CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.)
dated 12th July, 2011, in Writ Petition No.7013 of
2007. We have perused the said order. In Para 5
and 6 of the order, the Division Bench observed
thus:

¶264

"5. In these circumstances, in

¶265

our opinion, the Petition can
be conveniently disposed of by
directing the petitioner to
submit a fresh proposal within
four (4) weeks from today in
accordance with law.

¶266

6. The State will forward that
proposal, if all the requisites
are completed, including the
permissiontorunthe

¶267

residential school, to the
Union of India for release of
the grants."

¶268

wp7658.09

¶269

¶270

19.The issue of getting permission to run

¶271

the residential school was considered to be one of
the essential conditions by the Division Bench,
for forwarding the proposals.

¶272

20.There is substance in the submissions

¶273

made on behalf of the State in placing reliance
on the view adopted by the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (CORAM: V.C. DAGA

¶274

& V.M. KANADE, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.956 of
2003, cited supra.

¶275

21.Considering the nature of the scheme
framed by the Central Government, the role of the
State Agencies, the explanation given by the State
and the fact that the schools being run by the
Petitioners are not recognized, we are of the view
that at this stage, in exercise of extra ordinary

¶276

writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, no interference is
warranted by this Court in directing the State

¶277

wp7658.09

¶278

¶279

Government to forward the proposals of the

¶280

Petitioners as it is, to the Central Government.

¶281

22.For the reasons stated above, we observe

¶282

that the Petitioners are entitled to file
applications before the Competent Authorities for
seeking permission to run primary schools, in view

¶283

of the provisions of Rule 106 of the Bombay
Primary Education Rules, 1949. In case such
applications are already filed with the State/
Competent Authorities, or would be filed by the
Petitioners, then the State/ Competent Authorities

¶284

shall pass appropriate orders on the said
applications in accordance with the provisions of
the Bombay primary Education Act, 1947, the rules
framed thereunder, and the policy of the State,
and communicate the decision to the Petitioners.

¶285

23.After necessary compliances including
grant of recognition, the Petitioners are entitled
to file fresh proposals. In case such proposals

¶286

wp7658.09

¶287

¶288

are filed by the Petitioners with the State
Government, to be forwarded to the Central
Government for the purposes of getting grant-in-
aid, then the State Government would consider
those proposals in accordance with the scheme
framed by the Central Government and the steps
taken by the State in respect of processing of
such proposals, on its own merits. The Writ

¶289

Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶290

[T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶291

asb/JAN12

Gurukul Bahuuddeshiya Pratisthan Dhule through Chairman B N Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurukul Bahuuddeshiya Pratisthan Dhule through Chairman B N Patil 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

Rahul Rajaram Mane Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rahul Rajaram Mane Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pandit Rathiram Bangre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abdul Azij Abdul Gani Vs Raisoddin Mainoddin Kazi and Anr.

Satish Sampath Anarase Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramkrishna Omkar Dhake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.