Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 2336 Bom
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2016
wp2915.05 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2915 OF 2005
1. Gramin Vikas Shikshan Ani Krida
Prasarak Mandal, Khadki (BK)
Tq. And District - Akola,
Registration No. F 1199 through
its Secretary, Suresh Pundlikrao
Kale, aged about 50 years, occ.
Service, Head Master r/o Khadki,
Tq. And District - Akola.
2. Suresh Pundlikrao Kale,
aged about 50 years, occupation
Service, Head Master of Govindrao
Sarnaik Vidhyalya, Khadki Chandur
Tq. And District - Akola. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. Punyashlok Ahilyabai Holkar
Sanstha, Bormali (Shelgaon),
Tq. and District - Akola.
3. Divisional Deputy Director of
Education, Walgaon Road,
Amravati.
4. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola.
5. Gajanan Kharate,
aged 45 years, occupation -
Agriculturist, r/o at & Post
Chandur, Tq & Dist. - Akola. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:01:28 :::
wp2915.05 2
Shri A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MAY 05, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Nobody for the petitioner even today. Shri
Palshikar, learned AGP appears for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4.
Nobody for other respondents.
2. The challenge is to the order dated 28.04.2005 by
which Respondent No. 2 has been permitted to shift and run his
School at Chandur, District - Akola.
3. The learned AGP points out that this Court on
15.06.2005 observed that if the School is opened by
Respondent No. 2, its opening will be subject to final orders in
the matter.
4. After these orders dated 15.06.2005, the petition
has been amended on 22.06.2005. That amendment does not
bring on record any prejudice like fall in number of students
suffered by the petitioner.
5. Respondent No. 2 had filed reply on 02.07.2005
and thereafter Respondent No. 4 - Education Officer filed his
reply on 20.07.2005. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in
reply to this affidavit of Respondent No. 4 on 26.07.2005.
Again in that affidavit, material to demonstrate any unhealthy
competition is not brought on record.
6. We, therefore, find that with passage of time, the
challenge has become infructuous. Writ Petition is disposed of
accordingly. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!