Disposed¶18

Gram Vikas Sanstha, Thr. Secretary, Pauni, Bhandara and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2026WP/2933/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTE Act 2009; 25% quota fee reimbursement; Gram Vikas Sanstha; High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench; Kilor and Wakode JJ.; scrutiny within four weeks; determination of eligibility and quantum; Vivekanand Academy of Human Excellence WP 7672 of 2022 order dated 21.09.2023; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the concerned authority/respondent to scrutinize each petitioner's case within four weeks, determine eligibility and quantum of RTE fee reimbursement, reimburse the amount if the petitioners are found entitled, and otherwise communicate the reasons for non-entitlement. ¶18

Gram Vikas Sanstha, Thr. Secretary, Pauni, Bhandara and Another vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:5645-DB

¶2

121 WP-2933-2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2933 OF 2026

¶6

[Gram Vikas Sanstha and Another ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and Others]

¶7

______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Shri. Anand Parchure, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. S. M. Ukey, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. Shri. Kartin Shukul, D.S.G.I., for respondent No.7.

¶9

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 9 th APRIL, 2026 .

¶11

. Heard Shri. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. S. M. Ukey, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri. Kartik Shukul, learned D.S.G.I., for respondent No.7.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed with the assertion that the petitioners - school are entitled to reimbursement of fees for students admitted within the quota of 25% as per the provisions of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009. However, as per their entitlements, the petitioners - school have not been reimbursed the said.

¶13

An order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 21.09.2023 has been produced before us in Writ Petition No.7672 of 2022 (Vivekanand Academy of Human Excellence vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and other connected petitions, wherein the respondents have been directed to scrutinize the case of the petitioners regarding eligibility and quantum of the amount to be reimbursed.

¶14

121 WP-2933-2026

¶15

¶16

Accordingly, we direct that each case of the petitioners shall be scrutinized by the authority concerned within a period of four weeks and the eligibility and quantum be determined by the concerned respondent, to which the petitioners are entitled to.

¶17

If the petitioners are found to be entitled to some amount, the same shall be reimbursed to them. However, in case, the petitioners are not found to be entitled, then they shall be communicated the reasons for their non-entitlement for the amount they are claiming.

¶18

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶20

TAMBE

¶21

Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/04/2026 19:18:43

Gram Vikas Sanstha, Thr. Secretary, Pauni, Bhandara and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Vikas Sanstha, Thr. Secretary, Pauni, Bhandara and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rubina Parvez D/O Jamshid Khan and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Devp. Mumbai and Ors.

Sajjan S/O Pandurang Pendor and Others vs State of Mharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Maharaj Bag Club Ltd., Nagpur, Thr. Authorised Signatory, Shailendra S. Chhajed vs Shri Vivek Nawle, Superintendent Engineer, the N.H. Authority of India, Nagpur and Anr.

Sharad Ramdas Deshmukh vs State of Maha., Thr. Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Ors.

Late Radhikabai Meghe Mahila Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur, Thr. Secretary and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Home Department Mumbai and Others vs Prasanna Madhukar Shouche and Others