Disposed

Sidtarth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Sept 2013WP/7183/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding a delayed proposal for establishing a new Secondary School, the High Court found the respondent's contention that developments may have occurred plausible. The Court granted leave for a fresh proposal, directed the respondents to process it within three months, and provided liberty if no response was received by February 15, 2014.

What did the court decide?

Leave to submit a fresh proposal within six weeks; respondents to process it within three months; liberty to approach Court again by 15.2.2014 if no reply received.

Sidtarth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 7183 OF 2013

¶3

SIDTARTH SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶4

... Advocate for Petitioners : Shri B.S.Shinde AGP for Respondents: Shri K. M. Suryawanshi

¶5

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: September 12, 2013

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶8

The grievance of learned Advocate Shri Shinde is that the proposal moved in 1997 was not considered. Second proposal submitted in 2001 was never looked into. Thereafter again in 2008-09 proposal was submitted and it has remained pending. He, therefore, prays for passing appropriate orders so that pending proposal can be disposed of.

¶9

Learned AGP submits that the proposal is of the year 2008-09 and in the meanwhile, there may be several developments. He contends that still no notices are issued in the matter but a perspective plan may have come up and hence entire challenge is rendered infructuous.

¶10

We find substance in the contention of the learned AGP. In this situation, we grant leave to the petitioner to submit a fresh proposal in accordance with law within six weeks from today. If such proposal is submitted and same is in accordance with law, the respondents shall process it within further period of three months and communicate necessary decision to the petitioner. The proposal shall be processed

¶11

akl

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶13

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 7183 OF 2013

¶15

keeping in mind the fact that if same is granted, the petitioner should be in a position to start the new Secondary School in the academic year 2014-15.

¶16

If the petitioner does not receive any reply from the respondents in this respect by 15.2.2014, we grant it liberty to approach this Court again.

¶17

With these observations, directions and liberty, present Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶18

akl

Sidtarth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidtarth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal 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

Manoj Dayaram Chaudhari Vs Sunil Supadu Mahajan and Ors.

Manoj Dayaram Chaudhari Vs Sunil Supadu Mahajan and Ors.

Manoj Dayaram Chaudhari Vs Sunil Supadu Mahajan and Ors.

Ashok Rabhaji Auti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hari Limji Patil and Ors. Vs the Union of India through Ministry of Law of Judiciary Govt of India New Delhi and Ors.

Nalanda Education Society Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others