Bombay High Court
The President,Adarsha Mahila ... vs The State Of Mah.& Others on 20 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp3168.99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3168 OF 1999
The President, Adarsha Mahila
Mandal, Dr. Ambedkar Ward,
Bhandara. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The State of Maharashtra, through
the Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2) The Director of Education, Maharashtra
State, Pune 411 003.
3) The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur.
4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
5) Shri S.P. Pardhi, Block Education
Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhandara.
6) Mr. Ram Aswale, The Member of
Legislative Council, Shriram Niwas,
Kham Talav, Bhandara - 441 904.
7) Shri Sudhakar Balaji Motghare,
aged about adult, occupation : service,
r/o Bhagwan Budha Ward,
Bhandara, Taluq and District Bhandara. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1
to 4.
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for respondent no.7.
-----------------
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:05 :::
2 wp3168.99
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
, J.) :
By this writ petition, the petitioner - Education Society
challenges the order of the Director of Education, dated 21/8/1999
appointing an Administrator on the School run by the petitioner Society.
The petitioner has made some ancillary prayers in the writ petition.
When this writ petition came up for hearing in this Court on
20/3/2001, this Court issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (iii) of the writ petition. In view of grant of interim relief,
the respondent no.5 - Administrator was restrained from taking over the
charge of the Management of the School run by the petitioner Society. It
is not in dispute that in view of the interim relief granted by this Court on
20/3/2001 and also the previous order dated 27/8/1999, the
Administrator was not permitted to take over the charge of the
Management. The impugned order dated 21/8/1999 is not implemented
for more than 17 years due to pendency of the writ petition and in view
of the interim orders operating against the concerned respondents.
The Director of Education has relied on an adverse inspection
report of the year 2001 whereas the petitioner has relied on a recent
3 wp3168.99
inspection report of the year 2013 to state that there are not much
deficiencies in the School run by the petitioner Society.
In the fitness of things and in the circumstances of the case, it
would not be proper to decide the matter on merits. The Administrator
has not taken over the charge of the Management of the School and the
Management of the Society is managing the School during the past 17
years when this writ petition was pending. If the Teachers or any other
employees in the School have any grievance about the Management, they
are free to make a complaint in that regard to the Education Authorities,
which the Education Authorities will be free to decide in accordance with
law.
Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
states that in terms of the statement made by him on 3/2/2005, the
petitioner would not continue with the enquiries that were initiated
against the employees at the relevant time in the year 2004-05 and in
whose reference, the statement was made.
With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of the writ
petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
4 wp3168.99
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of the original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : Uploaded on :
Kamal H. Jeswani 21/9/2016
Private Secretary
