Disposed

Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its President Gajanan L Wakharkar v. the Union of India through Secretory and Others

Bombay HC18 Mar 2026WP/2974/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral citation 2026:BHC-AUG:12501-DB. Three consolidated writ petitions (Nos. 2974, 2975 and 2977 of 2026) before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, decided on 18 March 2026 by Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. Petitioners are school managements (Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal; Bhagwanbaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandals; Malikaarjun Appa Bahuuddeshiy

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the respondents to scrutinize the petitioners' proposals independently on their own merits and take an appropriate decision within (04) weeks; if the peti

Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its President Gajanan L Wakharkar Vs the Union of India through Secretory and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:12501-DB

¶2

p2, p3 and p5.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

902 WRIT PETITION NO.2974 OF 2026

¶5

Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Through Its President Gajanan L

¶6

Wakharkar

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The Union Of India Through Secretory And Others

¶9

Mr. Santosh S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondents/State. Mr. R. H. Mewara, Central Government Counsel for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶10

… AND

¶11

903 WRIT PETITION NO.2975 OF 2026

¶12

Bhagwanbaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandals Through Its Secretary And Others VERSUS

¶13

The Union Of India Through Secretory And Others

¶14

Mr. Santosh S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for Respondents/State. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Mr. K. S. Solanke, Central Government Counsel for Respondent No.1.

¶15

AND

¶16

905 WRIT PETITION NO.2977 OF 2026

¶17

Malikaarjun Appa Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Through Its President And

¶18

Anr

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

The Union Of India Through Secretory And Others

¶21

Mr. Santosh S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents/State. Mr. Akshay Kulkarni, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶22

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

¶23

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 18 MARCH 2026

[1]

p2, p3 and p5.odt

ORDER :-

. These are the petitions of reimbursement of fees in respect of 25% students admitted by the petitioner/management under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

¶29

Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGPs waive notice for respondents/State in respective petitions. Learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar waives notice for respondent No.5/Zilla Parishad in all the petitions.

¶30

We have heard both the sides.

¶31

We dispose of these writ petitions by directing the respondents to undertake scrutiny of petitioners’ proposal independently on their own merits and take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of (04) weeks from today and if the petitioners are found entitled to get reimbursement, shall disburse the money to the petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶32

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

scm

¶34

[2]

Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its President Gajanan L Wakharkar v. the Union of India through Secretory and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its President Gajanan L Wakharkar v. the Union of India through Secretory and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases