Bombay High Court
Shatkarni Vimukt Prabhodini ... vs The State Of Mahrashtra And Anr on 20 October, 2012
Bench: R.M. Borde
{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
{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withdrawn and statement to that effect has been recorded by this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
{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.
{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/*
