Shree Chanakya Eduction Society vs State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Principal Secretar School Education and Sport Dept. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shree Chanakya Eduction Society vs State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Principal Secretar School Education and Sport Dept. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed of on the strength of the Respondent-State's undertaking: the State to scrutinize Petitioner No. 2's reimbursement proposal (Section 12, RTE Act; academic years 2012-13 to 2023-24) within eight weeks and reimburse if found entitled, failing which to communicate reasons for non-entitlement; Petitioners free to pursue lawful remedies against any total or partial denial; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 should be directed to disburse to Petitioner No. 2 the amount claimed towards reimbursement under Section 12 of the RTE Act for the academic years 2012-13 till 2023-24.

Court's answer

The Respondent-State shall scrutinize the Petitioners' proposal for reimbursement and, if Petitioner No. 2 is found entitled to the amount claimed under Section 12 of the RTE Act, the same shall be reimbursed; this exercise to be carried out within eight weeks (implementing the State's statement on instructions, which the Court accepted).

Ratio / Principle

If the Petitioners are not found entitled to the reimbursement amount claimed, the Respondent-State shall communicate to them the reasons for their non-entitlement, within the same eight-week period.

Key takeaways

In the event of a decision of the Respondent-State of total denial or partial denial of the reimbursement amount claimed, it is open to the Petitioners to take such action as is permissible in law.ratio¶27
The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits of the case; entitlement was left to be determined by the Respondent-State's scrutiny.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 1003 of 2026, coram R.I. CHAGLA and ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ., decided 11 February 2026. Shree Chanakya Education Society & Anr. sought a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to disburse to Petitioner No. 2 the amount claimed towards reimbursement under Section 12 of the RTE Act for academic years 2012-13 till 2023-24. The learned AGP referred to prior Orders of the Court, including the Division Bench order dated 10 June 2025 in Writ Petition No. 6128 of 2025, which dealt with a similar prayer for reimbursement of fees for students admitted against the 25% quota under the RTE Act and had directed scrutiny and reimbursement if entitled. On instructions, the State undertook to scrutinize the present proposal within eight weeks and reimburse if the Petitioner-Institution is found entitled. The Court accepted the statement and directed accordingly, additionally requiring the State to communicate reasons in the event of non-entitlement, and left the Petitioners free to take such action as permissible in law upon total or partial denial. The Court expressly did not express opinion on the merits. The Writ Petition was disposed of in those terms, with no order as to costs.

908-wp-1003-2026.doc

jsn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1003 OF 2026

Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRASHANKAR SHANKAR NIJASURE NIJASURE Date:2026.02.12 18:39:51 +0530

Shree Chanakya Education Society & Anr.

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Maharashtra, Through Principal ...Respondents Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., and Ors.

Mr. Janay Jain and Ms Tamanna Meghrajani i/b. Parinam Law Associates for the Petitioners.

Shri O.A. Chandwadkar, Addl. G.P. with Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No.1, 2, 5 and 6 – State.

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2026.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Jain, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners

and learned AGP appearing for the Respondent – State.

The Petitioners by this present Writ Petition have sought direction to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to disburse to Petitioner No.2 the

said amount towards reimbursement claimed by it under Section 12 of the RTE Act for the academic years from 2012-13 till 2023- 24

1/3

908-wp-1003-2026.doc

within such period from the date of passing of the Order as this court may deem appropriate.

The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent – State has referred to prior Orders passed by this Court, including the order dated 10th June, 2025 passed in Writ Petition No.6128 of 2025, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had considered similar prayer of Petitioner – Institution for reimbursement of fees for students admitted against the quota of 25% as per the provisions of the RTE Act. The Division Bench of this Court had directed the authorities to scrutinize the proposal of reimbursement to the Petitioner – Institution and in the event they are found to be entitled to the said amount, the same shall be reimbursed to them.

The learned AGP for the Respondent – State has stated on instructions that the proposal of the Petitioner No.2 for the reimbursement of the said amount claimed by them under Section 12 of the RTE Act for the academic years from 2012 – 13 till 2023 – 24 will be scrutinized by the Respondent – State within a period of eight weeks from today and if the Petitioner – Institution is found to be entitled to the said amount, the same shall be reimbursed to them.

2/3

908-wp-1003-2026.doc

The statement is accepted.

Accordingly, the Respondent – State shall scrutinize the aforementioned proposal of the Petitioners for reimbursement and if the Petitioner No.2 is found entitled to the said amount, the same shall be reimbursed to them. However, in the event, they are not found to be entitled, then they shall be communicated the reasons of their non-entitlement for the said amount they are claiming. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks.

Needless to state that, if the Petitioners are aggrieved in the event of a decision taken by the Respondent – State of total denial or partial denial of reimbursement of the amount claimed by them, it is open for the Petitioners to take such action as permissible in law.

We have not expressed opinion on the merits of the case.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

[ ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA J. ]

3/3