Disposed

Adarsh Jeevan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Sept 2018WP/4615/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal held that grant-in-aid is subject to budget and terms laid down. The Court directed respondents to consider the 2016 Government Resolution and decide on the release of the 20% grant within three months.

What did the court decide?

The case be considered for grant-in-aid as per the Government Resolution dated 19.09.2016 and the decision made within three months.

Adarsh Jeevan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 ) wp 4615.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4615 OF 2016

¶5

Adarsh Jeevan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Through Its Secretary and another .. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Shri. Anand V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. P. R. Tandale, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

¶10

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATED : 10th September, 2018

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that standard 5th to 7th of the petitioner institution were brought on 20% grant in aid as per Government Resolution dated 01.03.2014. Though the petitioner institution was brought on grant in aid, the grant in aid was

¶13

not released. Subsequently the Government Resolution dated 19.09.2016 is issued whereby 20% grant in aid is directed to be disbursed to those institutions who were earlier brought on 20% grant in aid.

¶14

The learned counsel submits that the terms and conditions of Government Resolution dated 19.09.2016 are altogether different than those in the Government Resolution 01.03.2014 by virtue of which, the petitioner institution was brought on grant in aid. The learned counsel submits that right of the petitioner institution to get the grant in aid is crystalized on 01.03.2014. The respondents be directed to consider the Government Resolution dated 01.03.2014 as a relevant date for grant of grant in aid to the petitioner institution.

¶15

Mr. Tandale, the learned advocate and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents submits that the petitioner would be governed by Government Resolution dated 19.09.2016 and subject to compliance of terms and conditions as enumerated in the said Government Resolution, the grants would be disbursed to the extent of 20%.

¶16

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

¶17

counsel for the respective parties.

¶18

It appears that 5th to 7th standards of the petitioner institution are brought on 20% grant in aid pursuant to Government Resolution dated 01.03.2014. According to the Government Resolution dated 19.09.2016 all the institutions which were brought on 20% to 100% grant in aid prior to the issuance of the said Government Resolution, all these institutions will be released 20% grant in aid until further orders subject to compliance of the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions enumerated will have to be complied by the institutions.

¶19

It is trite that grant in aid is not a right, but it depends upon various facets, including the budgetary provisions.

¶20

The Government Resolution dated 19.09.2016 is explicitly clear laying down the terms and conditions for release of 20% grant to all the institutions who are brought on 20% to 100% grant in aid vide earlier Government Resolutions. The Government Resolution dated 19.09.2016 clearly stipulates that 20% grant in aid will be released to all these institutions until further orders and decision that would be taken with regard to the grant in aid.

¶21

( 4 ) wp 4615.16

¶22

In light of the above, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for the grant in aid as per the Government Resolution dated 19.09.2016 and the decision to that effect be taken and the amount be released in case, the petitioners are entitled to within a period of three (03) months from today. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶23

[ S. M. GAVHANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶24

ass/wp 4615.16

Adarsh Jeevan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh Jeevan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another 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

Bharatmata Krida Mandal, Aurangabad. through Its President Namdeo Ramrao Pawar Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation Cidco through Its Chief Administrator

Ambadas Baliram Gaikwad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bharatsing Limbaji Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhukar Dattatray Petkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vimal Sopan Mudgudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinod Bhimrao Dalavi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others