Disposed

The President, Shri. Pragat Vignesh Mandal and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2019WP/7708/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court examined a private un-aided school seeking permission to expand classes from 8th to 7th standard. While acknowledging a Government Resolution affecting class 5 admissions post-2013, the Court directed the State Government to reconsider the school's earlier infrastructure-based recommendation and pass necessary orders for classes 5 to 7 for the next academic year. The

What did the court decide?

The Petitioners are restrained from inducting students in classes 5, 6, and 7 for the next academic year. The State Government is directed to pass necessary orders based on the third Respondent's reco

The President, Shri. Pragat Vignesh Mandal and Anr… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

WP 7708.14.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7708 OF 2014

¶6

The President,

¶7

Shri Pragat Vignesh Mandal and Anr. … Petitioners.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents.

¶10

Mr. S.A. Rajeshirke for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondents 1 to 4.

¶12

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶13

DATE : 10 JUNE 2019.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Case of the Petitioners is that the first Petitioner, a Charitable Trust, has

¶16

established the second Petitioner - school in a triable area in the State

¶17

of Maharashtra. The school is an un-aided school. Permission

¶18

granted by the Education Department was for classes 8^th to 10^th .

¶19

WP 7708.14.doc

¶20

¶21

Pleading that there was no school in the area where education could

¶22

be imparted from the 5^th standard to the 7^th standard and that the children in the area who desired to study from 5^th standard onwards till the 7^th standard have to go to a school which was 3 km. away. The Petitioners sought approval to commence education in its school from 5^th standard onwards. It is pleaded that the application submitted by the Petitioners was processed by the third Respondent i.e. the Deputy Director of Education resulting in the third Respondent passing an order on 25 July 2011. The said order records that the Petitioners have the requisite infrastructure to impart education from the 5^th standard onwards. It is pleaded that a member of the legislative council representing teachers constituency made a similar recommendation. The grievance is to the fact that the third Respondent, while according approval as per the order dated 25 July 2011 made a recommendation to the State of Maharashtra to grant the necessary approval. Case pleaded by the Petitioners is that the third Respondent was the Competent Authority to accord the approval and thus once having found that

¶23

WP 7708.14.doc

¶24

¶25

the infrastructure was available, the third Respondent ought to have

¶26

granted the necessary sanction and not made a recommendation to the first Respondent to grant the necessary approval.

¶27

On aforesaid pleadings prayer made is to direct the third Respondent to grant the necessary approval.

¶28

In the counter affidavit filed it is pleaded that there was in existence a school established by the Zilla Parishad in the area to impart education from the 1^st standard to the 4^th standard and that as

¶29

per decision taken and notified by the Government Resolution dated

¶30

2 July 2013, schools imparting primary education from the 1^st to the 4^th standard were automatically sanctioned entitlement to impart education till the 5^th standard.

¶31

Thus, it is pleaded that under no circumstances could be

¶32

the Petitioner be granted approval to impart education for the 5^th standard.

¶33

WP 7708.14.doc

¶34

¶35

The counter affidavit does not state any reason as to why

¶36

at the middle level commencing from the 6^th standard to the 7^th standard approval was not granted to the Petitioners.

¶37

From the rival pleadings of the parties and the

¶38

documents on record it emerges that as per Government Resolution dated 2 July 2013, schools having classes from the 1^st to the 4^th standard became entitled to impart education till the 5^th standard and thus the decision taken by the third Respondent on 25 July 2011, which preceded with the Government Resolution dated 2 July 2013 cannot be said to be illegal. But, the effect of the Government Resolution would be that from the year 2013 only such schools would be entitled to impart education at the 5^th standard which had classes from the 1^st standard to the 4^th standard.

¶39

However, the response being silent as to why the Petitioners are not entitled to impart education from 6^th standard till the 7^th standard, noting that the Petitioners have the permission to

¶40

WP 7708.14.doc

¶41

¶42

impart education from the 8^th to the 10^th standard, we dispose of the Petition directing that from the next academic year the Petitioners would not induct any student in the 5^th standard or the 6^th and the

¶43

7^th standards we direct the State Government to consider the recommendations made by the third Respondent on 25 July 2011 and keeping in view the fact that the said Respondent has noted adequacy in the infrastructure available pass the necessary orders.

¶44

Should the order be against the Petitioners, the

¶45

Petitioners would be entitled to challenge the same.

¶46

N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

The President, Shri. Pragat Vignesh Mandal and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President, Shri. Pragat Vignesh Mandal and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Twenty First Century Finance Limited and Anr. Vs Moorgate Industries India Private Limited (Erstwhile Stemcor India Private Limited) and 2 Ors.

Malvani-Radhakrishna Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha(Niyojit) Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Charkop Jyotirmay Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Narinder Pal Agarwal Vs Saraswat Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Shri. Manoj Madhukar Mamble Vs the Collector, Sangli District and Ors.

Association of Management of Homoeopathic Med. Colleges of Mah. Thru Its Competent Authority and an Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Dept. of Medical Education and Drugs and Ors.