Dismissed

Shivshakti Bhauudheshiya Seva Sanstha, through President, Shhivajirao Keraba Sankpal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2019WP/6100/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging a government communication. The Bench held that the order was based on a government policy and did not suffer from legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed.

What the court decided

Shivshakti Bhauudheshiya Seva Sanstha, through… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(919)ASWP6100.14.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2014

¶4

1 Shivshakti Bhauudheshiya Seva Sangha & Ors. … Petitioners Vs 1 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. S.T. Bhosale for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. Rupali Shinde, AGP, for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & M.S. KARNIK , JJ.

¶8

TUESDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY, 2019

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 Having heard Mr. Bhosale at some length and

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

SRP 1/2

¶14

(919)ASWP6100.14.doc

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

M.S. KARNIK, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶18

SRP 2/2

Shivshakti Bhauudheshiya Seva Sanstha, through President, Shhivajirao Keraba Sankpal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Shivshakti Bhauudheshiya Seva Sanstha, through President, Shhivajirao Keraba Sankpal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niharika Pednekar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, Medical Edu. and Drugs Dept. and Ors.

Smt. Kusum Madhukar Suroshe Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of School Education and Ors.

Shri. Bhimrao Kisan More Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Shivprasad Sukhdeoprasad Sharma and Anr. Vs Nehru Shikshan Sanstha through Its President and Ors.

Shivshakti Bhauudheshiya Seva Sanstha, through President, Shhivajirao Keraba Sankpal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Saurabh Deorao Deoghare Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.