1 WP.3049.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3049 OF 2002.
Vasantraoji Naik Magasvargiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Dusarbid,
Through its President - Ramrao
s/o Khuba Rathod, Aged about
29 years, R/o Pimparkhed,
Tq. Sindkhedraja, Dist. Buldana. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032,
2] Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Region, Amravati,
3] Matruteerth Gramin Vikas &
Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha,
Sindkhedraja, Through its
President - Nazir Hussain
Manzur-Ul-Hasan Quazi,
Aged : about 32 years,
R/o Sindkhedraja, Tahsil
Sindkhedraja, District
Buldana,
4] Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana,
5] The Secretary, Maharashtra
State Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Board,
Amravati Division, Amravati. ...... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:53:12 :::
2 WP.3049.02
Mr. A.P. Darda, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. T.H. Khan, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4.
Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for respondent no.3.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 4, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI , J.) 1] The petitioner educational institute assails order dated 2.8.2002 passed by respondent no.1 allowing respondent no.3 to open a school in its vicinity. This Court did not grant any interim order and hence, S.L.P. No. 21327/02 was preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Leave was granted and it came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 4016/03. Apex Court on 22.11.2002 granted interim relief to petitioner and hence, school of respondent no.3 could not commence.
2] Civil Appeal No. 4016/03 has been disposed of by Apex Court on 6.5.2003 by observing that interim order dated 22.11.2002 passed by it shall enure to the benefit of parties till disposal of Writ Petition.
3] Accordingly, we have heard Mr. A.P. Darda, learned
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:53:12 :::
3 WP.3049.02
Advocate for petitioner, Ms. T.H. Khan, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Mr. A. Parchure, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 rival school. Nobody appears for respondent no.5. Mr. A. Parchure upon instructions states that as school could not commence for past more than 15 years, respondent no.3 in changed situation now does not find any point in establishing one more school in that area. According to him, school can be now conveniently located in adjacent area where there is need. He adds that respondent no.3 shall accordingly move respondent nos. 1 & 2 for necessary permission but then permission, if granted, should be on no grant basis.
4] Learned A.G.P. is opposing request of Mr. A. Parchure, learned Advocate for respondent no.3. She states that there was subsequent change in policy and now a substantive law has been enacted. The application of respondent no.3, if legally tenable, will have to be scrutinized as per that law and will be subject to terms and conditions stipulated therein.
5] It is apparent that in the present matter such a request of respondent no.3 cannot be evaluated. The application, if moved by respondent no.3, has to be as per law and respondent nos. 1 & 2 can ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:53:12 ::: 4 WP.3049.02 thereafter examine various aspects including need of the area and the perspective plan, if any.
6] Hence, contention that as respondent no.3 was earlier granted a permission on no grant basis, new permission should be treated as one in its lieu and, therefore, on same terms and conditions cannot be accepted by us. However, respondent no.3 can very well make such request to respondent nos. 1 & 2 and it is open to respondent nos. 1 & 2 to consider the same as per law. 7] In this situation, as respondent no.3 is not posing any threat for petitioner, we make rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (A). No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:53:12 :::