Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a refusal to grant retrospective government aid for a school. Court held the impugned order was based on government policy and lacked legal infirmity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(919)ASWP6100.14.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2014
1 Shivshakti Bhauudheshiya Seva Sangha & Ors. … Petitioners Vs 1 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. S.T. Bhosale for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Rupali Shinde, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & M.S. KARNIK , JJ.
TUESDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY, 2019
P.C. :
1 Having heard Mr. Bhosale at some length and
perusing the order under challenge, we are of the f i rm opinion that the communication / impugned order is based on a policy of the Government.
2 In the event institutions like the petitioner are seeking an approval for the past period, then, they would have to establish and prove that they set up the school after full compliance with the law. In the instant matter, the school was
SRP 1/2
(919)ASWP6100.14.doc
sanctioned as a special case by the then Minister of School Education, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner may have set up the school from 1999-2000 and thereafter requested to start a Secondary School or Secondary Section, but that was granted purely on unaided basis. Once it was granted on nonaided basis and as a special case, then, the petitioner cannot insist that the f i nal approval should also date back to this Academic Year. There are good reasons why the approval granted cannot date back to the Academic Year 2004-2005. All that the petitioner suffers is a loss of Government aid which is inadmissible from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012. However, that is now admissible in terms of the impugned communication from the Academic Year 2009-2010.
3 In the circumstances, we f i nd no fault with the order under challenge. It does not suffer from such legal inf i rmity or perversity calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.
M.S. KARNIK, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
SRP 2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the government's decision to deny retrospective aid constitutes a legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivshakti Bhauudheshiya Seva Sangha & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
S.C. Dhammadhikari
M.S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
