Chhatrapati Foundation Ashti Promoted Phoenix International English School and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary of School and Sport Department and Others

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:11438-DB

¶2

1 wp 2231.24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2231 OF 2024

¶5

Chhatrapati Foundation Ashti Promoted Phoenix International English School and others .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Shashikant D. Shekade, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Shri A. G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Respondent No. 8.

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 3418 OF 2024

¶9

Shri Gajanan Multipurpose Charitable Trust Through its President and another .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 3426 OF 2024

¶12

Rural Education Development Center Balgaon Kaij, Through its Secretary and another .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶13

Shri Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 2. Shri P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Shri A. G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Respondent No. 5.

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 3635 OF 2024

¶16

2 wp 2231.24

¶17

Shri Chintamani Education Trust of Parli Vaijnath through its President and another .. Petitioners

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶20

Shri Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Shri A. G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Respondent No. 5.

¶21

WITH

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 4315 OF 2024

¶23

Ramrao Naik Bahu Uddheshiya Seva Bhavi Sanstha through its Secretary .. Petitioner Versus

¶24

The Union of India and others .. Respondents

¶25

Shri Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.

¶26

WITH

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO. 4380 OF 2024

¶28

Rajmata Jijau Gramvikas Pratishthan Dudhodi through its Secretary Devidas Kisan Godase Patil and others .. Petitioners Versus

¶29

The Union of India and others .. Respondents

¶30

Shri Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri R. R. Bangar, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Shri Satish B. Parnere, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.

¶31

WITH

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO. 9984 OF 2022

¶33

3 wp 2231.24

¶34

Purna-Kaveri Shikshan Sanstha through its President and another .. Petitioners Versus

¶35

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶36

Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri S. W. Munde, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Mrs. V. A. Shinde/More, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶37

WITH

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO. 9985 OF 2022

¶39

Purna-Kaveri Shikshan Sanstha through its President and another .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶40

Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri S. W. Munde, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Mrs. V. A. Shinde/More, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶41

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 21 JUNE, 2024.

¶42

FINAL ORDER :

¶43

. In all these petitions by the individual institutions common grievance has been made that inspite of having admitted students under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, they have not been reimbursed the fees as per the statute.

¶44

The Principal seat, as also all the benches have been in similar fact and situation directing the authorities to consider the

¶45

4 wp 2231.24

¶46

individual proposals and to take appropriate decision within a stipulated time. We follow the course.

¶47

Writ petitions are disposed of with following directions :

¶48

The respondent/authorities shall undertake scrutiny of each of the petitioners’ proposals independently on their own merits and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four (04) weeks from today and shall disburse the money to them if they are found entitled to within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter.

¶49

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]

¶50

bsb/June 24

Chhatrapati Foundation Ashti Promoted Phoenix International English School and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary of School and Sport Department and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatrapati Foundation Ashti Promoted Phoenix International English School and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary of School and Sport Department and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kesharsingh Tasewal Vs the Chairman Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Others

Ganga Public School Batsar through Its Chairman or Secretary or Principaland Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Atma Malik International School through Its Principal Vs the State of Maharashtra Primary Education Department and Others

Kamlakar Pratap Padmar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Kishor Annasaheb Kamble and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Vinita Rajaram Rulsamudra and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others