{1}
wp3596.11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3596 OF 2011
Shatkarni Vimukt Prabhodhini Sanstha,
Aurangabad,District Aurangabad,
through its President,
Dharmaraj s/o Daga Bhoir,
age 36 years, occu. agri.,
r/o Kirti Housing Society,
N-8 CIDCOs, Aurangabad,
Tq. & District Aurangabad. Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Director of Education,
(School Education),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1. ...Respondents.
Mr.Sontakke Sandeep B. advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
S.S.SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 20th October, 2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:30:41 :::
{2}
wp3596.11.odt
finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 Petitioner is the education Institution desirous of opening Secondary/Primary Marathi medium school. Petitioner-
Institution tendered proposal with the State Government seeking permission to open Secondary/Primary Marathi medium school.
However, proposal tendered by the petitioner-Institution has been turned down by the State Government in view of the order passed on 04.06.2010. Petitioner is taking exception to the order issued by the State Government refusing to consider proposal for opening Secondary/Primary Marathi medium school.
3 It is contended that the State Government turned down proposal tendered by the petitioner requesting to accord permission to open Marathi medium school, however, permission was accorded by the State Government to open Urdu and English medium schools. It has been brought to our notice that the policy decision taken by the State Government on 04.06.2010 has been withdrawn and statement to that effect has been recorded by this Court in Writ Petition No.7472/2010. It has also been disclosed that proposals for approval are restored for consideration in accordance with provisions of law. It is also submitted that reason given in the impugned order is referable to the Cabinet decision dated 16.06.2009 though the same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Asha Sevabhavi Sanstha Vs. State ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:30:41 ::: {3} wp3596.11.odt of Maharashtra, reported in 2010(3) All M.R. 538. It has been pointed out that in June 2012, prospective plan has come into force in pursuance to the decision of the Full Bench in the matter of Shikshan Mandal and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2012(3) All M.R. 609. In view of unconditional withdrawal of the communication / order dated 04.06.2010, identical proposals are restored back to file by the State Government for fresh decision on the date on which judgment came to be delivered i.e. on 07.09.2010. Later judgment dated 12.10.2010 also notices this fact and grants time of six weeks to respective petitioners to supply further information and directs respondents to decide all pending applications by 31-3-2011.
4 Identical issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 60/2011 and 61/2011. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.07.2012 issued certain directions. Since instant petition also involves identical issue, we deem it appropriate to adopt the view taken by the Division Bench in writ petitions cited supra and issue following directions :
(A) Since proposal submitted by the petitioner is old and may not be in conformity with new law or policy, we grant time of eight (8) weeks to remove lacuna/infirmities, if any, to bring the proposal in conformity with present position.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:30:41 :::
{4} wp3596.11.odt (B) Respondent / State shall take fresh decision in the matter within a period of four months thereafter i.e. after expiry of period of eight weeks.
(C) If respondents find it necessary to hear the petitioner, it will be open to them to do so in appropriate cases.
(D) It is also to be ensured by the State Government that the place for which proposal has been tendered by the petitioner is included in the master-plan and if, the place is included in the master plan, the State may take cognizance of the proposal and pass suitable order.
5. With these directions, petition is partly allowed. Rule made partly absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
S.S.SHINDE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
plk/*
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:30:41 :::