WP 4715/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 4715/2015
Shri Vandniy Rashtrasant Tukdoji
Maharaj Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Chimur, Tah. Chimur, District Chandrapur,
through its Secretary - Shri Madhao
Ghanshambapu Birje. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Shri Vinod Tawade,
Minister for School Education
and Sports Department,
State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya
of Education, Mumbai.
3. Gandhi Seva Samiti, Chimur,
through its Secretary - Shri K.S.
Vaidya, R/o Chimur, District Chandrapur.
4. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri P.A. Jibhkate, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent nos.1, 2
and 4.
Shri R.Vaidya, Advocate holding for Shri A. Parchure, counsel for the respondent no.3.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 4 TH AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the notice of the proceedings before the Minister for School Education and Sports Department, dated 10.07.2015 asking the petitioner to remain present in the chamber of the concerned minister for hearing on a complaint- objection pertaining to the illegal transfer of the management in favour of the petitioner-Society.
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:46 :::
WP 4715/15 2 Judgment
2. According to the petitioner, the school run by the respondent no.3-Samiti was de-recognized some time in the year 2001 and the petitioner was permitted to run the school as a substitute school. It is stated that though the petitioner was running the said school as a substitute school for fifteen years without any complaint, the Hon'ble Minister for School Education and Sports Department has directed the petitioner to attend the hearing on the complaint made by the respondent no.3, in respect of the alleged illegal transfer of management of the school in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the Minister for Education and Sports Department would not have the jurisdiction to conduct the hearing in the complaint filed by the respondent no.3 and decide the same. It is submitted that once a school is de-recognized, the management of the de-recognized school would not be entitled to be considered for grant of permission to run any other school, in future. The petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 235 (Indira Pragati Shikshan Sanstha, Mindala, Chandrapur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others).
3. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2, submitted that the hearing in the complaint filed by the respondent no.3 was sought to be conducted by the respondent no.2 on the basis of the Government ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:46 ::: WP 4715/15 3 Judgment Resolution, dated 17.02.2012. It appears that several complaints were received against the petitioner-Society in respect of the illegal transfer of the management and, hence the respondent no.2 had taken cognizance of the complaints filed by the respondent no.3.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that the management of the school was not transferred to the petitioner and the petitioner was supposed to run the school only as a substitute school. It is submitted that the judgment reported in 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 235 (Indira Pragati Shikshan Sanstha, Mindala, Chandrapur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others) would not be helpful to the petitioner as the respondent no.3 is not seeking permission to run a new school but is only seeking the revival of the old school that is de-recognized. It is submitted that on a belief that the State Government could look into the matter, the complaints were filed before the Hon'ble Minister.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the respondent no.2 would not have jurisdiction to conduct a hearing in the complaint filed by the respondent no.3 and decide the issue pertaining to the permission granted by the State Government to the petitioner to run a substitute school. Though a query was made to the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:46 ::: WP 4715/15 4 Judgment respondent no.3, on what basis the complaint was filed before the respondent no.2, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 could not point out any provision, rule, regulation, etc., except a Government Resolution dated 17.02.2012, which in our view will not apply to the case in hand. The said government resolution is applicable in cases where a management of the school is sought to be changed and the said government resolution provides for the steps to be taken while granting permission for the change of the management. In the absence of any provision of law under which the matter could have been entertained by the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 could not have entertained the matter and called the petitioner for hearing. The respondent no.3 could have availed any other appropriate remedy but could not have filed the complaint before the respondent no.2. Since it appears that the respondent no.2 did not have the authority to decide the complaint filed by the respondent no.3, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.
6. Hence, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned notice. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:46 :::