Dismissed

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Shikshan Sanstha Karmad, Tq Parola, v. State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2016WP/2448/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a permission granted on a 'permanent non grant' basis for a school division, the High Court, Aurangabad, observed that a subsequent government policy had replaced this basis with 'no grant'. Considering this change, the court deemed the petitioner no longer interested in prosecuting the petition and disposed of the matter by discharging the rule.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged. No costs.

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Shikshan Sanstha Karmad, Tq… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2448 OF 2005

¶4

MAHATMA JYOTIBA FULE SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, KARMAD(BR)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. V. H. Patil, AGP for respondents 1 to 3

¶8

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:02nd December, 2016

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

1. We have heard Ms. Mahajan, the learned counsel

¶11

for the petitioner and learned AGP. According to the

¶12

learned counsel for the petitioner, the order granting
permission on 'permanent non grant' basis is erroneous.
According to the learned counsel, the permissions are
to be granted on 'No grant' so that phase wise the
said division can be brought on grant in aid basis.
The permission granted for 5th standard on 'permanent
non grant' basis is illegal.

¶13

2. The learned counsel submits that she has tried
to contact the petitioner but the petitioner has not
given any instructions in respect of the present state
of affairs, inspite of communicating to the petitioner.

¶14

1/2

¶15

1022.odt

¶16

3. It is submitted that the Government,

¶17

subsequently in the year 2008, has done away with the
policy of 'permanent no grant' basis and has replaced

¶18

with “no grant” basis. With the passage of time, it
appears that the petitioner must have got the benefit
of the said policy of the Government and therefore, is

¶19

not interested in prosecuting the present petition.

¶20

4. Considering the subsequent policy of the

¶21

Government of “no grant” instead of “permanent no
grant” writ petition is disposed of. Rule discharged.
No costs.

¶22

JPC

¶23

2/2

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Shikshan Sanstha Karmad, Tq Parola, v. State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Shikshan Sanstha Karmad, Tq Parola, v. State of Mah and Ors.

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

Sunil Gangaram Waghmare Vs the Director of Archives Govt. of Mah Elphinstone College

Sumanbai Bhaurao Shinde Vs Veeraswami Nandaiyya Nagula

Sadashiv Tukaram Sanap Vs S P Jaiswal and Others

Sunil Digambar Borole Vs Dhule Zilla Parishad Dhule and Ors.

Pandurang Rukhmaji Koturwar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Machindra Rangnath Jadhav Vs Kojagiri Machindra Jadhav