Disposed¶16

Cambridge School (Cbdse) Miraj through Trustee Virendrasinh P. Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary School Edu. Dept.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2025WP/2634/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTE Act 2009 Section 12(2) reimbursement grant; private CBSE school; balance grant claim; Director of Primary Education declared Competent Authority; directions to State education authorities; three-month timeline; Bombay High Court writ petition 2634 of 2025; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to respondent no.2 (Director of Primary Education) to consider the petitioner's entitlement to reimbursement of grant under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009 within three months of receiving a copy of the order; respondent no.3 to furnish necessary information; respondents to take further consequential steps if entitlement is found; Rule disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶16

Cambridge School (Cbdse) Miraj through Trustee Virendrasinh P. Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary School Edu. Dept. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of grant (balance amount) under Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and by which authority such entitlement is to be considered.

¶11

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent no.2 (Director of Primary Education) to consider the petitioner's entitlement to reimbursement of grant under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009, respondent no.3 being directed to furnish necessary information to the said authorities.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The process of considering the petitioner's entitlement is to be undertaken and completed within three months of receiving a copy of the order, and on entitlement being found, further consequential steps shall be taken by the respondents.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) disposes of a writ petition by Cambridge School (CBSE), Miraj seeking reimbursement of grant under Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, a part amount having been already reimbursed and the claim relating to the balance. On the Additional Government Pleader stating on instructions that respondent no.2 (Director of Primary Education) is the Competent Authority, the Court directed respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's entitlement under Section 12(2), with respondent no.3 (Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli) to furnish necessary information; the process to be completed within three months of receipt of the order, with consequential steps to follow if entitlement is found. Rule disposed of, no order as to costs.

¶1

SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT

¶2

Digitally signed by SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date: 2025.04.07 11:25:15 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2634 OF 2025

¶5

Cambridge School (CBSE), Miraj, Dist. Sangli ] Through Trustee : Virendrasinh P. Patil ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] Through School Education Department ] 2. The Director of Primary Education, ] State of Maharashtra ] 3. The Education Officer (Primary), ] Zilla Parishad, Sangli ] .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Aditya Raktade with Mr. Sumit Vhanbatte and Mr. Anup Kamble, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. Y.D. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 27^TH MARCH 2025.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. }

¶10

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioner is an Educational Institution seeking reimbursement of grant under the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, previously part amount of the grant has been reimbursed and now the entitlement is for balance amount of such further

¶12

grant.

¶13

1/2

¶14

912-WP-2634-2025-Corrected Judgment Pursuant to Speaking to Minutes Order dt.4-4-2025.doc Dixit

¶15

The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the respondent no.2 is the Competent Authority to consider the entitlement of the petitioner.

¶16

In the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent no.2 to consider the entitlement of the petitioner to reimbursement of grant under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009. The respondent no.3 shall furnish necessary information to the said Authorities, as required. The aforesaid process of considering the entitlement of the petitioner be undertaken and completed within a period of three months of receiving copy of this order. Needless to state that on such entitlement being found, further consequential steps shall be taken by the respondents.

¶17

Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶18

2/2

¶19

912-WP-2634-2025-Corrected Judgment Pursuant to Speaking to Minutes Order dt.4-4-2025.doc Dixit

Cambridge School (Cbdse) Miraj through Trustee Virendrasinh P. Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary School Edu. Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cambridge School (Cbdse) Miraj through Trustee Virendrasinh P. Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary School Edu. Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kailas Ghule Vs the Union of India Thr the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Darul Habeeb General Education and Welfare Trust Thr Its Authorised Signatory Vs the District Collector Ratnagiri and Ors.

National Medical Commission Thr. Its Secretary and Ors. Vs Suyash Suryakant Patil

Shivsahyadri English Medium School , Gajawadi Thr Headmistress D R Wangade Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Shivsahyadri English Medium School , Satara Thr Headmistress N R Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Sec, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Sanyogita Patil Cambridge School and Jr. College Miraj through Trustee Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.