Disposed

Sant Pundlik Shikshan Mandal Pratishthan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Sept 2013WP/3535/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the Director of Education to examine the petitioner's representation regarding the inclusion of a village in the Master Plan for a new secondary school within three months. It imposes further time limits on the State Government to act on the Director's recommendation and grants liberty to renew the grievance if no decision is reached promptly.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Director to decide on representation within three months; State to decide on recommendation within further three months; liberty to renew grievance.

Sant Pundlik Shikshan Mandal Pratishthan Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Writ Petition No. 3535 of 2013

¶3

Sant Pundlik Shikshan Mandal Pratishthan, Somthana, Taluka : Naigaon, District : Nanded, Through its President. .. Petitioner.

¶4

versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶6

The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶7

The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur.

¶8

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, District : Nanded. .. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. A.V. Patil Indrale, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. V.D. Godbharle, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1.

¶11

(2)

¶12

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER 2013

¶14

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶15

Heard Adv. Mr. A.V. Patil for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. V.D. Godbharle for respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶16

Learned AGP Mr. Godbharle is seeking time as he has still not received instructions. Adv. Mr. Patil, however, states that the controversy is covered by orders of this Court dated 16th July 2012 in Writ Petition No. 60 of 2011 and also orders passed recently on 13th September 2013 in Writ Petition No. 9931 of 2012.

¶17

Admittedly, village of the petitioner has not been included in Master Plan. As prescribed, the petitioner has represented to the Director i.e. respondent no.2. If respondent no.2 / Director finds any substance in the contention of the petitioner, he can thereafter make a positive recommendation to respondent no.1.

¶18

Here, representation of the petitioner is still pending before respondent no.2 / Director.

¶19

Hence, in the light of orders already passed, we find it appropriate to direct respondent no.2 to take decision on the said representation made by the petitioner, within a period of three months from

¶20

(3)

¶21

today. If necessary, the Director may hear the petitioner before taking such decision. For the said purpose, we direct the petitioner to remain present before the Director on 14th October 2013 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter.

¶22

Recommendation, if any, made by the Director, shall then be looked into by respondent no.1 / State Government, in accordance with law, within further period of three months.

¶23

We are imposing this time limit only to see that if village is included in the Master Plan, said village may have new secondary school, at least, from the academic year 2014-15.

¶24

We grant liberty to the petitioner to renew his grievance, if the recommendation of the petitioner is not processed and forwarded by respondent no.2 / Director within a period of three months from today, or then, if appropriate decision is not reached by respondent no.1 / State within further period of three months.

¶25

With these directions and liberty to the petitioner, as indicated above, the petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

bgp/wp3535

Sant Pundlik Shikshan Mandal Pratishthan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Pundlik Shikshan Mandal Pratishthan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Gangadhar Mergewad Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Gram-Panchayat, Satala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Guru Ganesh Jain Shikshan Samiti and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Bhagwanrao Kalyanrao Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Gyanba Alure Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shrishbai Malhari Sonkamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others