Allowed

Indira Education and Welfare Society Parbhani Thr Secretary v. Najmunnisa Begum Abdul Sattar and Another

Bombay HC1 Oct 2019RA/106/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application concerning a writ petition regarding education facility allocation, the Court dismissed the review petition, holding that mere apprehension of prejudice is not a valid ground. The order extended the time frame for the Education Officer to decide the pending proposal from twelve weeks to four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed in part; time for Education Officer to decide proposal extended by four weeks.

Indira Education and Welfare Society Parbhani Thr… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

106.19ra

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO.106 OF 2019 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1079 OF 2019

¶6

Indira Education and Welfare Society,
Parbhani, Through its Secretary,
Abdul Majeed s/o Abdul Rahim,
Age: 64 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o. Mehraj Nagar, Near Mohammadi
Masjid, Parbhani

¶7

APPLICANT

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1.Najmunnisa Begum D/o Abdul Sattar,
Age: 52 years, Occ: I/c. H.M. Service,
R/o. Marathwada Plot, Guru Baba
Pariser, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani

¶10

2. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr S.S. Kazi, Advocate a/w Ms Fatima S. Kazi, Advocate
for the applicant;

¶12

Mr A.N. Sabnis, Advocate for respondent No.1;

¶13

Mr Mahesh Kale, Advocate h/f Mr B.A. Shinde, Advocate for
respondent No.2

¶14

WITH

¶15

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11009 OF 2019

IN

( 2 )

106.19ra

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2019 IN

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.1079 OF 2019

¶21

Shaikh Habib Yakub
Age: 52 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Marathwada Plot, Guru
Baba Parisar, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani

¶22

APPLICANT

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

Najmunnisa Begum D/o Abdul Sattar,
Age: 52 years, Occ: I/c. H.M. Service,
R/o. Marathwada Plot, Guru Baba
Pariser, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani & ors

¶25

RESPONDENTS

¶26

Mr A.B. Tele, Advocate for the applicant;
Smt Fatema Kazi, Advocate for respondent No.1;
Mr Mahesh Kale, Advocate h/f Mr B.A. Shinde, Advocate for
respondent No.2;

¶27

Mr S.V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶28

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

¶29

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

¶30

DATED :1st OCTOBER, 2019

¶31

ORAL ORDER:

¶32

Heard Mr. Kazi,learned Counsel for the

¶33

applicant.

¶34

2.The applicant i.e. Indira Education and Welfare

¶35

Society, Parbhani through Secretary, by way of present
application prays for review of the order passed by this
Court on 1st April, 2019.

¶36

3.Perusal of the order clearly shows that on

¶37

limited premise, namely, that the proposal is submitted
to the Education Officer and same is pending before the
said authority without there being any decision by him,
the Division Bench of this Court thought it fit to
dispose of the petition with direction to the Education
Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani to decide the
proposal as expeditiously as possible and not later than
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order of
this Court. In paragraph-5 of the order, this Court
further made it clear that the Education Officer
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani was to take decision
on its own merits on verification of the record.

¶38

4.The ground being raised by Mr. Kazi, learned
Counsel for the applicant is only of apprehension of the
applicant that the Education Officer may arrive at a
conclusion which would be prejudicial to the interest of
the applicant society. It was also submission of Mr.
Kazi, learned Counsel that the parties may not place the
proper and relevant record before the Education Officer.
This apprehension is totally unfounded and cannot be
treated as any settled ground, such as an error apparent
on the face of record or misrepresentation by the parties
before this Court or any act of exceeding jurisdiction as
available for the purpose of filing a review of an order.
Only an apprehension expressed by the party cannot be a
reason for this Court to review the order dated 1st
April, 2019, that too, on the backdrop of specific
direction of this Court that the Education Officer is to
take decision on merits of the proposal on verification
of the record.

¶39

5.At the cost of repetition, we say that when the

¶40

Education Officer is directed to take decision on
verification of the record, the Education Officer is
certainly expected to verify the record thoroughly, apply
his mind and pass appropriate order.

¶41

6.Considering these facts, we are of the opinion
that no ground is made out for reviewing the order passed
by this Court dated 1st April, 2019. The application,
thus, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and same
is accordingly dismissed.

¶42

7.Mr. Mahesh Kale, learned Counsel h/f Mr B.A.

¶43

Shinde, learned Counsel for the Education Officer

¶44

submitted before this Court that because of the review
application being filed in this Court by the society, the
Education Officer was unable to proceed in the matter so
as to take decision as directed by this Court within the
time as directed and prays for extension of period for
taking decision as directed by this Court.

¶45

8.Accordingly, the Education Officer is permitted
to take decision within four weeks from today. Needless

¶46

to state that earlier period granted by this Court is now
extended by this order.

¶47

9.In view of dismissal of the application seeking

¶48

review, no orders are required to be passed on the
application seeking intervention. The application is
disposed of.

¶49

[AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]

¶50

Tupe

Indira Education and Welfare Society Parbhani Thr Secretary v. Najmunnisa Begum Abdul Sattar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indira Education and Welfare Society Parbhani Thr Secretary v. Najmunnisa Begum Abdul Sattar and Another

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

Pandurang Rambhau Gitte Vs Vandana Krishna and Others

Nusaratjahan Mohammad Maqsood Vs Surajprasad Jaiswal and Others

Pravin Vishwanath Khalatkar Vs Sanjay S Kadam and Another

Govind Keshav Nikam and Another Vs Uday Chaudhari

Rajendra Gangadhar Bhujbal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manohar Kishanrao Wankhede Vs the Chairman and Managing Director Central Bank of India Mumbai