Bombay High Court
Dr. Zakir Hussain Shikshan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 June, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
2026.2014WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2026 OF 2014
1] Dr.Zakir Hussain Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, at New Nanded, Dist. Nanded,
through its Secretary -
Smt. Khaja Begum d/o. Mohammedsaab,
Age: 60 Years, Occu. : Household,
Workshop road, Nanded
Dist. Nanded
2]
Noorhanha Urdu High School,
Naigaon [Bazar], Tq. Naigaon [Kh]
Dist. Nanded, through its Headmaster
Yusufkhan s/o Chandkhan Pathan,
Age : 36 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o : Naigaon [Bazar], Tq.Naigaon [Kh],
Dist. Nanded PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Extension Building,
Mumbai-32.
2] The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3] The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Region,
Latur.
4] The Education Officer [Secondary],
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
Dist. Nanded. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:34:03 :::
2026.2014WP.odt
2
...
Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to
4.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.
Reserved on : 16.06.2016
Pronounced on : 24.06.2016
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:
This Petition is filed with the
following prayers:
C) By writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate, writ order or
directions in the nature of writ of
Certiorari, the impugned order dated
15.12.2013 passed by the respondent
No.1, thereby rejecting the proposal
of the petitioner for transfer of
petitioner No.2 school from Naigaon
[Bazar] Dist. Nanded to Taroda [Bk],
at Nanded be quashed and set aside
and for that purpose, necessary
orders be passed.
D) By writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate, writ order or
2026.2014WP.odt
directions in the nature of writ of
mandamus, the respondent No.1 be
directed to allow the petitioners to
shift / transfer the petitioner No.2
school from Naigaon [Bazar] Dist.
Nanded to Taroda [Bk], at Nanded as
per the proposal submitted by the
petitioners and for that purpose
necessary orders be passed.
2] The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners submits that the proposal of
shifting of petitioner No.2 school was
complete in all respects, even the said
proposal was supported with the documents
including the 'no objection' certificates
from Grampanchayat, Taroda [Bk] and also the
no objection certificate issued by the other
Schools located in Taroda [Bk], having their
no objection for shifting the said school
from Naigaon [Bazar] to Taroda [Bk.]. The
said proposal of shifting of the school was
recommended by the Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Naigaon [Kh] as well as
2026.2014WP.odt
the Block Education Officer, vide order dated
12th June, 2006 as also by the Education
Officer [Secondary] and the Deputy Director
of Education, Latur to the Director of
Education. It is submitted that since the
Competent Authority has not considered the
prayer of the petitioners for shifting the
School, Writ Petition No.8704/2011 was filed
before the High Court. The High Court
disposed of the said Writ Petition on 19th
December, 2011, with the directions to
respondent no.1 to consider and decide the
proposal of the petitioners for shifting of
petitioner no.2 school from Naigaon [Bazar]
to Taroda [Bk] as expeditiously as possible,
however, within a period of three months
from the date of order. It is submitted that
the respondent authorities did not take
decision within three months as ordered by
this Court, therefore, the petitioners were
required to file Contempt Petition. It is
2026.2014WP.odt
submitted that for unsustainable reasons, the
permission to shift the school has been
rejected by the respondent authorities. It
is submitted that the provisions of Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009, enables such transfer from one
place to another. Therefore, relying upon
the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken
therein and the documents placed on record,
the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the Petition
deserves to be allowed.
3] On the other hand, the learned AGP
appearing for the respondent - State, relying
upon the reasons assigned in the impugned
order submits that, sufficient and cogent
reasons are assigned in the impugned order.
The impugned order is passed after hearing
the petitioner and considering all the
documents, and therefore, the Writ Petition
may be rejected.
2026.2014WP.odt
4] We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and the learned
AGP appearing for the respondent - State.
With their able assistance, perused the
pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto
and the reasons assigned by respondent no.1
in the impugned order. Upon perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that after hearing
the petitioners and the local Officers, the
impugned decision is taken by respondent
no.1. One of the reasons assigned is that
once the School is closed, the transfer of
such closed school would not arise. It is
also observed that the place where the school
was granted, there are no sufficient
students; there are no facilities, no
teachers and therefore, the Deputy Director
of Education recommended closure of the
school. It is further observed that it was
2026.2014WP.odt
responsibility of the Institution to provide
infrastructure, appoint necessary staff and
run the school. It is also observed that
there are no convincing reasons for accepting
the request of transfer of the school.
5] Upon careful perusal of the reasons
assigned in the impugned order, in our
opinion, the reasons assigned are in
consonance with the material, which was
available before the Authority. Even if the
petitioners' contention is considered, there
is need of school at Taroda [Bk.], the State
Government will have to follow the procedure
while granting permission for transfer of
school or opening new school at that place.
It appears from the reasons recorded by
respondent no.1 in the impugned order that
the petitioners were responsible for not
running the school properly at Naigaon
[Bazar], where the same was granted. It
appears that there was no sufficient
2026.2014WP.odt
infrastructure, strength of the teachers
etc., and as a result, the Deputy Director of
Education recommended closure of the school.
Therefore, the petitioners have no right to
seek transfer of the said school, which was
closed due to inability of the petitioners to
run it.
6] Therefore, we are unable to persuade
ourselves to issue any mandatory directions
to the respondents to allow the transfer of
the school as prayed by the petitioners. For
the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition
stands rejected. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
