W.P. No.7539/2006
(( 1 ))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7539 OF 2006
Magas Samaj Seva Mandal,
at Deotala, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur,
through its President
Ramdas s/o Jaisingh Chavan,
Age 52 years, Occu. Agri. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Secretary,
Women and Child Welfare
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
(Copy to be served on Govt.
Pleader, High Court of Judicature
of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
2. The Secretary,
Women and Child Welfare
Development Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
3. The Commissioner,
Women and Child Welfare
Development Department
Maharashtra State Pune ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri B.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondents
.....
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:00 :::
W.P. No.7539/2006
(( 2 ))
CORAM: RAVINDRA .V. GHUGE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : 9th NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.6.2004, passed by respondent No.3, granting financial aid to the petitioner institution from the academic year 2004-2005. Grievance is that, the petitioner has been operating a Balak Ashram from the academic year 2003-2004. Hence, the grants should be extended from 2003-2004.
2. We have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. on behalf of the respondent.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that, after the inspection of the petitioner's Balak Ashram was conducted on 12.9.2003, permission to start the Balak Ashram was granted by the Government Resolution dated 26.2.2004. The said permission is from the academic year 2003-2004. The impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and without taking into account that the Balak Ashram is being conducted by the petitioner in an appropriate manner, all facilities are supplied, infrastructure is available and the children admitted are not deprived of any amenities.
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:00 :::
W.P. No.7539/2006 (( 3 ))
4. Learned A.G.P. points out that, the inspection report pursuant to the inspection conducted on 12.9.2003 is only recommendatory in nature. By the Government Resolution dated 26.2.2004, the permission was granted to the petitioner on grant- in-aid basis. The said Government Resolution cannot be granted a retrospective effect.
5. After considering the submissions of the learned Advocates, we find from the inspection report at Sr.No.10, 12(3), 19 and 20 that, when it came to the amenities to be supplied and compliances to be done by the management desirous of starting the Balak Ashram, it is recorded that the petitioner management has stated after the approval is granted to operate Balak Ashram, the amenities would be provide and the documents and other aspects would be maintained. Even as regards supply of nutritious food and medicines, the management has stated that, it would grant those amenities after the approval is granted. We are, therefore, of the view that, insofar as the academic year 2003-2004 is concerned, the petitioner had disclosed its willingness to supply basic amenities after the approval is granted, which means that the same were not available when the inspection was carried out.
6. The Government Resolution dated 26.2.2004 would indicate that the petitioner was granted the permission to operate the Vasantrao Naik Balak Ashram at Shingoli on grant-in-aid basis. The last paragraph of the Government Resolution states that, the ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:00 ::: W.P. No.7539/2006 (( 4 )) grants for the said institution would be as per the audit sanction granted in the financial year 2003-2004. It does not in any way suggest that the petitioner was granted post-facto sanction, thereby legitimizing the commencement of the Balak Ashram for the academic year 2003-2004.
7. In the light of the above, we find that, when no sanction was granted to the Balak Ashram for the academic year 2003-2004, the petitioner had commenced the said school. Needless to state, the petitioner would, therefore, not be entitled for the grants for the academic years 2003-2004 and the same would be available as per the order dated 7.6.2004 pursuant to the permission granted by Government Resolution dated 26.2.2004.
8. This petition being devoid of merits, is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE )
JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:00 :::