Dismissed

Shreyash Education and Research Institute, through Secretary, Shri. Dadasaheb Maruti Thorat and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of School Education and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Mar 2015WP/4455/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged Clause 1 of a 2013 Government Resolution allotting marks to institutions owning school buildings, arguing deletion of the word 'local' rendered it invalid citing a 2013 judgment. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding deletion of 'local' did not render the clause bad in law as the policy aspect remained sound.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shreyash Education and Research Institute, through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

903 WP 4455-14.doc

Sequeira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4455 OF 2014.

¶6

Shreyash Education and

¶7

Research Institute and ors. .. Petitioners Vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.S.Pakale i/b Mr.A.R.Belge, for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Mali, Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶10

CORAM: Mrs. Vasanti A. Naik & Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar JJ. Tuesday 10 March, 2015.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

By this petition the petitioners impugn Clause 1 of the Government Resolution dated 25 November 2013 allotting ten marks to the institutions having their own school building, eight marks to the institutions having a building on lease for a period of 30 years and one mark to the institutions which is in a position to secure a school building within a period of three months from the date of making of the application, for permission to start a new school.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioners that by the previous resolution of the State Government dated 5th December 2012, ten marks were allotted to the local institutions having a school building of their own and eight marks to the local institutions having a building on lease for a period of 30 years and since that Clause was held to be

¶14

903 WP 4455-14.doc

¶15

valid by the Judgment dated 23rd July 2013 in a bunch of Writ petitions bearing Writ petition No.1566 of 2013, the State Government could not have, by the impugned resolution, dated 25th November 2013 substituted the words 'local institution' while allotting ten marks to any institution having a school building of it's own. It is stated that since the earlier Clause was upheld by this Court by the judgment dated 23rd March 2013, the State Government could not have made any change in the said Clause.

¶16

We do not find any merit in the only submission made on behalf of the petitioner for challenging Clause 1 of the Government Resolution dated 25th November 2013. Merely because the words 'local institution' are deleted from Clause 1, the said clause cannot be said to be bad in law. The State Government has in it's wisdom rightly framed the policy of granting ten marks to the institution having a building of it's own and eight marks to an institution having a building on lease for a period of 30 years. Merely because the word 'local' is removed from Clause 1 of the Government Resolution dated 5th December 2012, while framing the policy by the Government Resolution dated 25th November 2013, the Clause cannot be susceptible to challenge.

¶17

Since we do not find any merit in the only submission made on behalf of the petitioners, the Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

(Mridula Bhatkar J.)

¶19

(Vasanti A.Naik J.)

Shreyash Education and Research Institute, through Secretary, Shri. Dadasaheb Maruti Thorat and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of School Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreyash Education and Research Institute, through Secretary, Shri. Dadasaheb Maruti Thorat and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of School Education and Ors.

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

Mrs. Haseena D/O. Abubaker Wahedna W/O. Yusuf Vahedna Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Jadhav Devidas Vilasrao and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Nigar Sultana Ladkhan Bangi Vs the Divisional Cast Scrutiny Committee, Committee No. 1 and Ors.

Smt. Alka Dattoba Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.