Bombay High Court
Shri Vandniy Rashtrasant Tukdoji ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 4 August, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 4715/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 4715/2015
Shri Vandniy Rashtrasant Tukdoji
Maharaj Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Chimur, Tah. Chimur, District Chandrapur,
through its Secretary - Shri Madhao
Ghanshambapu Birje. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Shri Vinod Tawade,
Minister for School Education
and Sports Department,
State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya
of Education, Mumbai.
3. Gandhi Seva Samiti, Chimur,
through its Secretary - Shri K.S.
Vaidya, R/o Chimur, District Chandrapur.
4. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri P.A. Jibhkate, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent nos.1, 2
and 4.
Shri R.Vaidya, Advocate holding for Shri A. Parchure, counsel for the respondent no.3.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 4 TH AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the notice of
the proceedings before the Minister for School Education and Sports
Department, dated 10.07.2015 asking the petitioner to remain present in
the chamber of the concerned minister for hearing on a complaint-
objection pertaining to the illegal transfer of the management in favour of
the petitioner-Society.
WP 4715/15 2 Judgment
2. According to the petitioner, the school run by the respondent
no.3-Samiti was de-recognized some time in the year 2001 and the
petitioner was permitted to run the school as a substitute school. It is
stated that though the petitioner was running the said school as a
substitute school for fifteen years without any complaint, the Hon'ble
Minister for School Education and Sports Department has directed the
petitioner to attend the hearing on the complaint made by the respondent
no.3, in respect of the alleged illegal transfer of management of the
school in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the Minister for
Education and Sports Department would not have the jurisdiction to
conduct the hearing in the complaint filed by the respondent no.3 and
decide the same. It is submitted that once a school is de-recognized, the
management of the de-recognized school would not be entitled to be
considered for grant of permission to run any other school, in future. The
petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 235
(Indira Pragati Shikshan Sanstha, Mindala, Chandrapur Versus State of
Maharashtra & Others).
3. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2, submitted that the
hearing in the complaint filed by the respondent no.3 was sought to be
conducted by the respondent no.2 on the basis of the Government
WP 4715/15 3 Judgment
Resolution, dated 17.02.2012. It appears that several complaints were
received against the petitioner-Society in respect of the illegal transfer of
the management and, hence the respondent no.2 had taken cognizance of
the complaints filed by the respondent no.3.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that
the management of the school was not transferred to the petitioner and
the petitioner was supposed to run the school only as a substitute school.
It is submitted that the judgment reported in 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 235
(Indira Pragati Shikshan Sanstha, Mindala, Chandrapur Versus State of
Maharashtra & Others) would not be helpful to the petitioner as the
respondent no.3 is not seeking permission to run a new school but is only
seeking the revival of the old school that is de-recognized. It is submitted
that on a belief that the State Government could look into the matter, the
complaints were filed before the Hon'ble Minister.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that
the respondent no.2 would not have jurisdiction to conduct a hearing in
the complaint filed by the respondent no.3 and decide the issue
pertaining to the permission granted by the State Government to the
petitioner to run a substitute school. Though a query was made to the
learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the
WP 4715/15 4 Judgment
respondent no.3, on what basis the complaint was filed before the
respondent no.2, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the
learned counsel for the respondent no.3 could not point out any
provision, rule, regulation, etc., except a Government Resolution dated
17.02.2012, which in our view will not apply to the case in hand. The
said government resolution is applicable in cases where a management of
the school is sought to be changed and the said government resolution
provides for the steps to be taken while granting permission for the
change of the management. In the absence of any provision of law under
which the matter could have been entertained by the respondent no.2,
the respondent no.2 could not have entertained the matter and called the
petitioner for hearing. The respondent no.3 could have availed any other
appropriate remedy but could not have filed the complaint before the
respondent no.2. Since it appears that the respondent no.2 did not have
the authority to decide the complaint filed by the respondent no.3, the
impugned notice is liable to be set aside.
6. Hence, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned
notice. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
