Disposed

Sufiya Unique Muslim Mahila Welfae Education Society, Thr. President, Mrs. Shahazadi Begum Ab. Ham v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, for School Education and Sports Department, Mumbai

Bombay HC13 Jan 2021WP/6076/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an educational society, sought direction to avoid future rejection for starting classes in 9th and 10th standards after obtaining permission for the 8th standard on a non-grant basis. The court held that since no new application was filed, the outcome could not be predicted, and courts cannot apprehend future events.

What did the court decide?

No further orders passed; the writ petition is disposed of.

Sufiya Unique Muslim Mahila Welfae Education… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 / 3 12-WP 6076.2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6076 OF 2019

¶4

Sufiya Unique Muslim Mahila Welfare Education Society -- Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra and others -- Respondents

¶5

Mr. S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶6

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATED : 13 January 2021

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The Petitioner Educational Institute had submitted a proposal for grant of new school from Standard 8^th to 10^th on 12 May 2009. The proposal was rejected on 12 March 2010. Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner bearing No. 4029 of 2010, which was disposed of on 25 August 2011, directing the Respondent Authorities to pass a fresh order. By order dated 23 December 2011, the Principal

¶10

KOLHE

¶11

2 / 3 12-WP 6076.2019

¶12

Secretary for School Education and Sports Department had reiterated its earlier rejection referred to pendency of Writ Petition No. 6727 of 2010 and directed that an inspection be carried out. The Petitioner did not challenge the order, nor the inspection was conducted.

¶13

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that subsequently on 29 June 2016, permission is granted by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati for starting 8^th Standard for the year 2014-2015 on non-grant basis.

¶14

It is the contention of the Petitioner that in view of this development and the grant for 8^th Standard, there should be no impediment for the Respondent Authorities to permit the Petitioner to conduct classes for 9^th and 10^th Standard as well. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that if the Petitioner submit a proposal for starting 9^th and 10^th Standard classes, it might be rejected on the basis of the earlier orders passed.

¶15

The Petitioner has not made such an application as yet. Therefore, it is not possible to comment as to what would be the outcome. If there is

¶16

KOLHE

¶17

a change in circumstance then the Authorities can always scrutinize the application of the Petitioner afresh and take a decision as per law. If the position has not changed, Authorities can always take a decision as per law. Therefore, the apprehension of the Petitioner at this stage is unwarranted.

¶18

No further orders can be passed. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

[ ANIL S. KILOR, J. ] [ NITIN JAMDAR, J. ]

¶20

KOLHE

Sufiya Unique Muslim Mahila Welfae Education Society, Thr. President, Mrs. Shahazadi Begum Ab. Ham v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, for School Education and Sports Department, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sufiya Unique Muslim Mahila Welfae Education Society, Thr. President, Mrs. Shahazadi Begum Ab. Ham v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, for School Education and Sports Department, Mumbai

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

Smt. Chaya Premdas Rathod Vs the Tahsildar/Returning Officer,Gram Panchayat Vasatnwadi and Others

Vijay Ratnadeep Kumbhare Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary to Government Tribal Development Department, Mumbai

Chandrashekhar Raghavan Pillai and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Mangesh Purandas Dongre Vs the Principal Judge/Chairman Review Committee, Family Court Nagpur and Another

Pradip S/O Nanasaheb Gomase Vs the Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat, Ghodasgaon and Others

Kapil S/O Mukund Sutaria Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others