Dismissed

Mr. Pramod Sitaram Patil v. State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, School and Education Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2024IA/7322/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PTA member sought quashing of a private CBSE school's circulars compelling parents to buy books from specified vendors and adoption of NCERT books. The court declined on grounds of non-joinder of the trust, weak locus, unverifiable Google Form support, and noted the cited 2017 CBSE circular had been quashed in Delhi.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr. Pramod Sitaram Patil Vs State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

PPN

¶2

904-wp-4932.23(j) modified.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR

¶5

Digitally signed by CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR WRIT PETITION NO.4932 OF 2023 Date: 2024.04.24

¶6

17:20:13 +0530 WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.4932 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7322 OF 2024

¶8

Pramod Sitaram Patil

¶9

One of the PTA member appointed for
the academic year 2022–2023
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Employee,
Having residential address at
Flat No. B-403, Krishna Apt,
Plot No. 10, Sector- 30,
Kamothe Panvel- 410206.

¶10

Versus

¶11

..Petitioner/Applicant

¶12

1. State of Maharashtra , Through the Secretory, School and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.

¶13

2. The Principle

¶14

New Horizon Public School, Panvel
(NHPS, Panvel) Having add. at
Sec- 13, Khanda Colony,
Khanda Colony main road,
New Panvel (E) – 410206.

¶15

3. The Chairman

¶16

New Horizon Public School, Panvel
(NHPS, Panvel) Having add. at
Sec- 13, Khanda Colony,
Khanda Colony main road,
New Panvel (E) – 410206.

¶17

4.The Education Officer
(Pre-Primary, Primary, Secondary)
Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibaug.

¶18

1 of 9

¶19

904-wp-4932.23(j) modified.doc

¶20

PPN

¶21

5.CBSE Board, New Delhi
Having official address at
Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre,
Preet vihar, Delhi – 110092.
Having branch office at
RLM Business Park, SR. NO. 28/4/A,
Old Kharadi Mundava Road,
Opposite to Bollywood Multiplex,
Kharadi, Pune – 411014...Respondents

¶22

Mrs. Priyanka N. Patil a/w. Ms. Ashwini N. Sawant for the
Petitioner/Applicant.

¶23

Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. G. P. a/w. Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP for
Respondent-State.

¶24

Mr. Prateek Seksaria, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Amogh Singh, Mr. Nishant
Chotani, Mr. Nivit Srivastava, Ms. Sneha Patil, Ms. Vrinda Samdani i/by.
Maniar Srivastava Associates for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Ms. Aparajita R. Jha i/by. Mr. Rahul Kamerkar for Respondent No.5-
CBSE.

¶25

CORAM :A. S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

¶26

Date on which the Arguments were heard : 4 th April 2024
Date on which the Judgment is pronounced : 10 th April 2024

¶27

Judgment :- (Per Jitendra Jain, J.)

¶28

.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr.Walimbe, learned
Additional Government Pleader waives service of notice for respondent-
State. Mr. Seksaria, learned senior counsel waives service of notice for
respondent nos.2 & 3. Ms.Jha, learned counsel waives service of notice
for respondent no.5. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶29

2 of 9

¶30

904-wp-4932.23(j) modified.doc

¶31

PPN

¶32

2.This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the petitioner who claims to be one of the Parent-Teacher
Association (PTA) Member appointed for the academic year 2022-23.
The petitioner seeks following reliefs :-

¶33

“aa. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside and quash the
impugned Circulars dated 21st March 2024, bearing Nos. NHPSP/2023-
2024/pre-primary:32, NHPSP/2023-2024/primary:64, and Circular dated
23rd March 2024, bearing Nos. NHPSP/2023-2024/Sec:90, NHPSP/2023-
2024/Sec: 90, issued by the Respondent No. 02 and 03, respectively and
direct Respondent Nos. 02 and 03, to follow Minutes of meeting dated 26th
November 2022 and availed the text books, note books and stationery, in
local market to the Public at large;

¶34

bb. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 02
and 03, not to force the parents to purchase / order the book online from
private vendor, i.e. Popular Books and his sister concern i.e. Samant Books;

¶35

c. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 02 and
03, to start with NCERT Books from nursery to Xth, to avoid violations on
the part of private vendors and high payments for the private publisher
with unnecessary books;”

¶36

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that New Horizon Public
School, Panvel has issued a Circular which requires that the student
should purchased text books, note books, stationery, etc. from the
vendors specified in the said Circular.

¶37

4.It is the submission of the petitioner that these vendors
specified in the Circular issued by the School charge exorbitant prices
for text books, note books, stationery, etc. compared to the books issued
by NCERT. The petitioner further submitted that the School also does

¶38

3 of 9

¶39

904-wp-4932.23(j) modified.doc

¶40

PPN

¶41

not permit the use of second hand books. The petitioner has relied upon
a Circular dated 19th April 2017 issued by the Central Board of
Secondary Education which is addressed to all the CBSE affiliated
schools and which directs the schools not to indulge in commercial
activities by way of selling of text books, note books, stationery,
uniforms, etc. and to adhere to the provisions of the Affiliation Bye-laws
of the Board. The petitioner has shown us the comparative table of the
charges of the books sold by the vendors prescribed and referred to in
the Circular issued by the School and that of NCERT books. The
petitioner submits that necessary directions be issued to the School not
to compel the students to buy the books from a particular vendor of a
particular author.

¶42

5.Per contra, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have raised a
preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition. The
said respondents submits that a New Horizon Public School, Panvel is a
Private Unaided Minority Linguistic Educational Institution run by the
Public Charitable Trust. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has
not impleaded the Trust and/or its trustees in the present petition but
has made the Principal and Chairman of the School as parties. The
respondents submit that on this count itself, the petition requires to be
dismissed. The respondents further submitted that it is a settled position

¶43

4 of 9

¶44

PPN

¶45

904-wp-4932.23(j) modified.doc

¶46

of law that a Private Unaided Minority Linguistic Educational Institution
is neither a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor does if
any render any public duty and therefore, a writ is not maintainable,
and moreover in this case, since the Trust/School/ Trustees are not
made parties, the petition is not maintainable. Respondent nos.2 and 3
further submitted that they are individuals and no writ can lie against
the individuals. The amended reliefs sought are also against the
respondent nos.2 and 3 and therefore, this Court should dismiss the
petition as it is not maintainable. The respondents has also relied upon
various decisions in support of its submissions. The petitioner has
further contended that the present writ petition is filed by only one
parent when there are more than 4700 students in School. Therefore,
even on this count, the present petition should not be entertained. The
respondent nos.2 & 3 further submitted that for the academic year 2024-
25 around 98.5% students have already purchased the books and
therefore, even on this count, the grievance of the petitioner should not
be entertained. The respondents further submitted that the Google
Form submitted across the bar should not be entertained in support of
the submission of the petitioner that there are many parents who are
aggrieved by the said Circular issued by the School. The respondent
nos.2 & 3 has further submitted that it is prerogative of the school as to
how the education has to be imparted to the students and since it is the

¶47

5 of 9

¶48

904-wp-4932.23(j) modified.doc

¶49

PPN

¶50

decision of the school who are the best person to judge which books
should be required for educating the students, this Court cannot sit in
judgment over such a policy decision of the institution. The respondent
nos.2 and 3, therefore, submitted that even on this count, the petition
should not be entertained.

¶51

6.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the respondents and the learned senior counsel for respondent nos.2
and 3 and with their assistance have perused the documents annexed to
the petition.

¶52

Analysis and Conclusions :-

¶53

7.In our view, the present writ petition does not deserve to be
entertained for the following reasons:-

¶54

(i)The present petition is filed seeking relief against
respondent nos.2 and 3 without impleading the trust and its trustees
who own and run the school. No relief is sought against respondent
nos.1, 4 and 5. Therefore, on this ground itself on account of non-
joinder of necessary party, the present petition cannot be entertained.

¶55

(ii)Secondly, the present petition is filed by only one individual,
although there was around more than 4,700 students studying in the

¶56

6 of 9

¶57

904-wp-4932.23(j) modified.doc

¶58

PPN

¶59

school. The petitioner in its petition has only stated that he was a
member of PTA for the year 2022-23. There is no averment made in the
petition as to what is the locus of the petitioner for the academic year
2024-25. No details of the petitioner’s child/children taking education at
the respondent no.2-school have been given. Therefore, even on this
ground, the petition cannot be entertained.

¶60

(iii)The petitioner in the course of the hearing has tendered a google
form to contend that there are many parents who are effected by the
impugned communication/circular issued by the school. On a perusal of
the said google form, it cannot be ascertained whether the responses
given by the people have agreed to join the present petitioner. The said
google form also does not bring out that the people whose views were
sought were people who were affected by the impugned
circular/communication. We fail to understand as to why if many
parents are aggrieved then they did not join the present petitioner in
espousing their grievance in the present petition. We cannot take the
google form at its face value and, therefore, even on this count, the
petitioner cannot be said to represent other students of the school.

¶61

(iv)The respondent nos.2 and 3 have contended that around more
than 98.5% students have already purchased the books for the academic

¶62

7 of 9

¶63

904-wp-4932.23(j) modified.doc

¶64

PPN

¶65

year 2024-25 and the academic year has already started from 1st April
2024. Therefore, even on this count, we are of the view that the present
petition cannot be entertained.

¶66

(v)No grievance has been shown to have been made with the
respondent no.4-Education Officer with regard to the impugned
Circulars for the academic year 2024-25. Insofar as, respondent nos.2
and 3’s contention that a writ is not maintainable against a Private
Unaided Educational Institution, we do not express our opinion on the
same in the present matter, but leave it to be adjudicated in appropriate
case moreso since in the present petition the said institution is not made
a party. Therefore, we are not dealing with the decisions relied upon by
respondent nos.2 and 3 in the present judgment.

¶67

(vi)We are also not expressing any opinion on the impugned
circular/communication and the grievance raised by the petitioner on
exorbitant charges charged on the books.

¶68

(vii)The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the Circular
dated 19th April 2017 issued by CBSE which is an advisory to its
affiliated school not to indulge in commercial activities by way of selling
of books, stationary, etc. Insofar as the said Circular is concerned, same

¶69

8 of 9

¶70

904-wp-4932.23(j) modified.doc

¶71

PPN

¶72

was the subject matter of challenge before the Delhi High Court in the
case of Association of School Vendors & Ors. Vs. Central Board of
Secondary Education & Ors. in Writ Petition (C) No.7414 of 2017 and
Delhi High Court in paragraph 49 has quashed the said Circular.
Therefore, as of today, the said Circular does not exist and even on this
count, the present writ petition cannot be entertained.

¶73

8.In view of above, the petition is dismissed with no order as
to costs. Pending interim application is also disposed of.

¶74

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶75

This judgment is modified as per speaking order dated 22nd April 2024.

¶76

9 of 9

Mr. Pramod Sitaram Patil v. State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, School and Education Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr. Pramod Sitaram Patil v. State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, School and Education Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anup Limbraj Dure Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Narayan Kacher Koli and Anr. Vs the Koli Gramsevak Samiti Vitawa through Chariman and Ors.

Balkrishna a. Shetty Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors.

Suvarna Kishor Keole Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The District Deputy Registrar Co. Operative Societies II Eastern Suburb Mumbai Vs Olaf Dsilva and Ors.

Deep Education Soc. Deeps Degree College Thr. Trustee Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secr. Higher and Technical Education and Anr.