Disposed

Pramod Vishwanath Rohile v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Sept 2013WP/3020/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a rule and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority again if no decision on their request for middle schools is received by March 31, 2014, directing a hearing on 21st October 2013 for further submissions.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to appear on 21.10.2013; directed authority to decide within 4 months; liberty granted to re-approach if no decision by 31.03.2014.

Pramod Vishwanath Rohile Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3020 OF 2013

¶4

Pramod s/o. Vishwanath Rohile

¶5

.. PETITIONER/S

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

.. RESPONDENT/S

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 3043 OF 2013

¶10

Pushpa w/o. Limbraj Gadve

¶11

.. PETITIONER/S

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶14

.. RESPONDENT/S

¶15

Mr. V.M. Humbe, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶16

CORAM :- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE :- 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2013.

¶17

ORAL ORDER :-

¶18

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶19

2] Heard Shri Humbe, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri V.D. Godbharle, AGP for the respondents. Since facts in both these petitions are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶20

3] Advocate Shri Humbe, points out that need of a middle school at village Medsinga and village Varuda, is accepted

¶21

¶22

by the Education Officer. Education Officer accordingly placed the proposal before the Deputy Director of Education concerned. The Deputy Director of Education also accepted the recommendation and submitted a positive report to the Director of Education, Pune. However, when the Government resolution dated 14.6.2012 was seen by the petitioners, they found that their villages are not included in the Master plan/Perspective plan.

¶23

4] Advocate Humbe relied upon the grounds in the petitions to justify the need of middle school at respective villages. According to him, the concept of neighbourhood school as laid down by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has been totally lost sight of by the Government in the present matter. He also submits that reply filed before this court is by Education Officer only and hence, it does not deal with this vital aspect.

¶24

5] Learned AGP relies upon affidavit in reply. He submits that the Government has found it not necessary to include the respective villages in the Master Plan. The respondent No.1 has not filed any reply before this court. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in present matter are in favour of the petitioners. Their positive recommendation was placed before the Director of Education, i.e respondent No.2, who, in turn, may have submitted it to respondent No.1. Decision of respondent No.1 has come out in the shape of the Government resolution dated 14th June, 2012.

¶25

6] If facts stated by the petitioners are correct, the requirement of neighbourhood school, considering the distance specified in State Rules framed under the 2009 Act ( Supra), is not

¶26

¶27

prima facie satisfied.

¶28

7] Learned AGP sought time to file appropriate reply touching the aspect of requirement under the 2009 Act. However, we have rejected that request.

¶29

8] We find that it would be appropriate in this situation, to direct the petitioners to appear before the respondent No.1 on 21st October, 2013 and to submit appropriate representation pointing out the relevant legal provisions and absence of school in neighbourhood. If such representations are submitted to respondent No.1, or to other competent authority, the said authority shall peruse the same, call for records from the concerned Education Officer, and concerned Deputy Director of Education and thereafter take necessary decision, within a further period of 4 months and communicate the same to the respective petitioners. Decision shall be taken in any case, before 31st of March, 2014. The time limit is imposed only to see that in case request of the petitioners is granted, their villages can be included in the perspective plan and new school can then be established in their respective village in the academic year 2014-15. We grant liberty to petitioners to approach again, if they do not receive any communication from the respondent No.1/competent authority on their representations till 31st March, 2014.

¶30

9] Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶31

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J] [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J]

¶32

grt/-.

Pramod Vishwanath Rohile v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Vishwanath Rohile v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Murlidhar Gore Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jitendra Anupchand Jain and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of City of Jalgoan through Commissioner and Anr. Vs Madhukar Vasantrao Alande and Anr.

Sudhakar Pandit Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sakhubai Ratan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gangadhar Nivrutti Kamble(Maulikar) Vs Narmadabai Shivaji Chidmalwad and Ors.