Disposed

Shivaji Education Society v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2014WP/2990/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The disposal order held that no substantive issue survives as respondents already possess permission to run schools for over a decade. Applicants seeking to start schools must apply afresh. Consequently, all connected writ petitions and civil applications were disposed of without further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions and civil applications were disposed of by recognizing the respondents' existing school permissions.

Shivaji Education Society Vs State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 WP1352/2000 & 8 petitions

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1352 OF 2000

¶4

Hameed Qureshi Educatiional and
WelfareSociety,Osmanpura,
Aurangabad

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

 Mr. Zia-Ul-Mustafa, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent no.4

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 2746 OF 2001

¶12

Shri Sant Govindbaba Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Parbhani

¶13

Petitioner

¶14

V E R S U S

¶15

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶16

Respondents

¶17

 Mr. V.M. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. R.R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent no.5

¶18

WITH

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO. 2987 OF 2001

¶20

Shri Ganesh Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Ganeshwadi, Post. Sonai,
Taluka Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶21

Petitioner

¶22

V E R S U S

¶23

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶24

Respondents

¶25

 Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. a.B. Kale, Advocate for respondent no.4

¶26

2 WP1352/2000 & 8 petitions

¶27

WITH

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO. 2990 OF 2001

¶29

Shivaji Education Society, Nava,
Taluka and Dist. Jalna

¶30

Petitioner

¶31

V E R S U S

¶32

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶33

Respondents

¶34

 Mr. B.A. Dhengle, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondent/State

¶35

WITH

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO. 2992 OF 2001

¶37

Tagore Shikshan Samiti

¶38

Petitioner

¶39

V E R S U S

¶40

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶41

Respondent

¶42

 Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondents/State

¶43

WITH

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO. 3186 OF 2001

¶45

Gundaji Namdeorao Shinde

¶46

Petitioner

¶47

V E R S U S

¶48

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶49

Respondent

¶50

 Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondents/State
Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent nos.6 to 10

¶51

WITH

¶52

WRIT PETITION NO. 3210 OF 2001

¶53

Shramik Janta Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Chalisgaon

¶54

Petitioner

¶55

V E R S U S

¶56

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶57

Respondent

¶58

 Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondents/State
Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.4

¶59

WITH

¶60

WRIT PETITION NO. 4078 OF 2001

¶61

Shri Sai Shikshan Sanstha, Jamkhed

¶62

Petitioner

¶63

V E R S U S

¶64

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶65

Respondent

¶66

 Mr. T.B. Bhosale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondents/State
Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate for respondent no.4
Mr. B.T. Bodkhe, Advocate for respondent no.5

¶67

WITH

¶68

WRIT PETITION NO. 5165 OF 2001

¶69

Shri Kamakshi Shikshan Sanstha,
Kamargaon, Taluka and District
Ahmednagar

¶70

Petitioner

¶71

V E R S U S

¶72

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶73

Respondent

¶74

 Mr. B.V. Dhage, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondents/State
Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for respondent no.5

¶75

4 WP1352/2000 & 8 petitions

¶76

 CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE &
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
 DATE : 1st September, 2014

¶77

PER COURT :

¶78

1.Due to passage of time, nothing survives in
these petitions. The respondents received permission
to run the school. They are running their schools for
last more than 10 years. If the petitioners are
interested in starting new school in the changed
circumstances, they may apply afresh. In view of
this, all petitions stand disposed of.

¶79

2.In view of disposal of above petitions, Civil
Application Nos.996 of 2003, 3836 of 2005 and 3648 of
2006 stand disposed of.

¶80

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)

¶81

SRM/1/9/14

Shivaji Education Society v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Education Society v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikrao Pundlikrao Subhedar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nizamoddin Amirsaheb Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nizamoddin Amirsaheb Choudhari Deceased Thr. Lrs. Zubeda Begum Nizamoddin Chaudhari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Sant Govindbaba Shishkan Prasarak Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ganeshwadi Sonai Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Devaji Gopala Ingle Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.