Bombay High Court
Vishwambhar Shikshan Sanstha ... vs State Of Maha. Through Secty., ... on 24 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 J-WP-5181-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5181/2013
1. Vidarbha Jeevan Vikas Sanstha,
Nagpur - Through its President
Dr.Ramesh Govindrao Singam,
Aged about : 69 years,
Occu : Social Worker,
R/o 66, Jawahar Nagar,
Nagpur.
2. Rachna Jan Vikas Bahuuddeshiya
Sanstha, Plot No.62, Kapil Nagar,
Nari Road, Nagpur - through its
Secretary, Vishal Deorao Sangolkar,
Aged about : 36 years,
Occu : Social Worker,
R/o 66, Jawahar Nagar, Nagpur.
3. Late. Jankidevi Atkar Seva Sanstha
through Secretary Ashok Mahadeoraoji
Khobragade, Aged about : 52 years,
R/o Koradi Road, 2nd Railway Crossing,
Smruti Nagar, Plot No.72, Bokhara,
Nagpur, Tq. & Distt. Nagpur.
4. Samarth Ramdas Swami Bahuuddeshiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Karanja (Ghadge),
Tq. Karanja, Distt. Wardha - through
President / Secretary Shri Uttamrao
Ramrao Sawarkar, Aged about : 48 years,
R/o Santaji Nagar, Murti Road, Katol,
Tq. Katol, Distt. Nagpur. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Social Justice,
Cultural, Sports and Special
Assistance Departt., Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner of Disabled,
Apang Kalyan Ayuktyalaya,
Maharashtra State, Pune : 1. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:27:04 :::
2 J-WP-5181-13.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5013/
201
5
1. Vishwambhar Shikshan Sanstha,
through its President
Mrs. Pranoti Vinod Dhoble,
Aged about : 40 years, Pharas
Zingabai Takli, Nagpur.
2. Shree Vitthal Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan
Sanstha through its Secretary
Mr.Sahebrao Yeshawantrao Raut,
Aged about : Major,
New Nandanvan, Nagpur. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Social Justice, Cultural Sports
and Special Assistance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner of Disabled
Apang Kalyan Ayuktalaya,
Maharashtra State, 3,
Church Road, Pune - 1. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3438/2015
1. Sou. Anandibai Bahu-Uddeshiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Sakoli,
District Bhandara through its
President.
2. Sheela Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan
Sanstha, Murmadi, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara through its
Secretary.
3. Ashay Shikshan Sanstha, Chandori,
District Bhandara through its
Secretary.
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:27:04 :::
3 J-WP-5181-13.odt
4. Anjuman-A-Islamia Bahu-Uddeshiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Nandura, District
Buldhana through its President.
5. Dnansagar Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan
Sanstha, Malkapur, District Buldhana
through its Secretary.
6. Gurukripa Bahu-Uddeshiya Samajik
Shaikshanik Sanstha, Barad-Paoni,
(Thadi-Paoni), District Bhandara
through its Secretary.
7. Hariom Shaikshanik Va Sanskritik
Magasvargiya Sewabhavi Bahu-
Uddeshiya Sanstha, Mhasla,
District Buldhana through its
President.
8. Moulana Kamruddin Minority
Multi-Purpose Society, Buldhana
through its President.
9. New Citizens Technical Institute,
Buldhana through its Secretary.
10. Vidarbha Shikshan Bahu-Uddeshiya
Va Apang Kalyan Sanstha, Deulghat
District Buldhana through its
Secretary.
11. Master Education Va Welfare Society,
District Buldhana through its Secretary.
12. Sada Aloukik Bahu-Uddeshiya Sanstha,
Lohara, District Yeotmal through its
President. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Social Justice, Cultural Sports
and Special Assistance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:27:04 :::
4 J-WP-5181-13.odt
2. The Commissioner of Disabled
Apang Kalyan Ayuktalaya,
Maharashtra State, 3,
Church Road, Pune - 1. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. M. Vaidya, Adv. H/f Shri Anand Parchure, Adv. for the petitioners in all
petitions.
Shri P.D. Thakre, Addl. G. P. for the respondents in all petitions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
24/07/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is
identical and similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together
and are decided by this common Judgment.
By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged
the Government Resolution dated 11/08/2004 imposing the condition
on the institutions desirous of starting the schools for disabled children
of giving an undertaking that the institutions would not claim grant-in-
aid from the Government for running the special schools or workshops,
in future.
The petitioners are the societies and institutions that
were desirous of starting the special schools for disabled children. As
per the policy of the State Government dated 4 th December, 2003,
permission could not have been granted to any institution or society to
5 J-WP-5181-13.odt
run the schools for disabled children. However, since some non-
governmental organizations and institutions were not able to do some
social work by starting the schools for disabled children, the State
Government issued the Government Resolution dated 11/08/2004 with
a view to grant permission to such institutions and societies to start the
special schools only if they gave an undertaking to the Government in
writing that they would not claim grant-in-aid for the special schools
from the Government at any point of time, in future. All the petitioners -
societies - institutions have given such undertaking in writing to the
Government except one school that was started in the year 1999 on
permanent "No Grant Basis". The petitioners were running the special
schools without grant-in-aid from the Government since 2004 and
onwards till they filed these writ petitions in the year 2013 and 2015 for
a direction against the respondents to provide grant-in-aid to the
petitioners for running the special schools. Since as per the Government
Resolution dated 8th April, 2015, the State decided to provide grant-in-
aid to 123 special schools, the petitioners have sought a direction
against the respondents to include the names of the petitioners -
societies in the list of the schools that are entitled to receive the grant-
in-aid from the Government.
Shri Vaidya, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the Government Resolution dated 11/08/2004 that
provides for the submission of an undertaking that the institutions
6 J-WP-5181-13.odt
would not claim grant-in-aid for the special school from the
Government at any point of time, in future is arbitrary and illegal and is
liable to be set aside. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Section
26 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities) Act, 1995, it
would be necessary for the Government to ensure that every child with
a disability has access to free education in an appropriate environment.
It is submitted that the Government could not have, by the Resolution
dated 11/08/2004 sought an undertaking in writing from the
petitioners on Rs.100/- stamp paper that the petitioners would not
claim grant-in-aid from the Government, in future. It is submitted that
the list of 123 schools annexed to the Government Resolution dated 8 th
April, 2015 is fraudulent as in the said list, the names of several special
schools that have given an undertaking are included. It is submitted that
the petitioners have been illegally left out while grant-in-aid is provided
to 123 other special schools. It is stated that when one school was
granted permission as a special case, one of the petitioners who is
running a school only for disabled girls would be entitled to permission.
Shri Thakre, the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents has opposed the prayers made in
the writ petitions. It is submitted that in view of the financial
constraints, the State Government had decided not to give permission
for starting a school for disabled as per the policy decision dated 4 th
December, 2003. It is submitted that since by the said decision, certain
7 J-WP-5181-13.odt
non-governmental organizations and other groups that wanted to work
for the disabled children were prevented from starting schools for the
disabled children, the State Government decided by the Government
Resolution dated 11/08/2004 to grant permission to such institutions
doing social work to start the special schools only if they tendered an
undertaking to the Government that they would not claim grant-in-aid
at any point of time, in future. It is submitted that all the petitioners
had applied in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated
11/08/2004 and had given an undertaking in writing to the
Government that they would not claim grant-in-aid from the
Government. It is submitted that having applied for permission in
pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 11/08/2004, the
petitioners would not be entitled to challenge the said Government
Resolution. It is submitted that the Government decided to bring some
special schools on grant-in-aid in 2014-2015 and therefore, after
considering the criteria laid down in the Government Resolution dated
8th April, 2015, 123 schools were included in the list of schools that
could be brought on grant-in-aid. It is submitted that till date, only 746
special schools are brought on grant-in-aid and 963 schools do not
receive grant-in-aid. It is stated that as and when the Government
decides to bring the other schools on grant-in-aid, in future, the cases of
963 schools which are not receiving grant-in-aid would be considered. It
is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, specially when the
8 J-WP-5181-13.odt
petitioners were granted permission to run the school on permanent
"No Grant Basis" in terms of the Government Resolution dated
11/08/2004 on the undertaking that they would not claim grant-in-aid
from the Government at any point of time in future, the petitioners
would not be entitled to the relief claimed.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that the petitioners would not be entitled to seek a direction against the
respondents to bring the special schools run by the petitioners on grant-
in-aid. The petitioners have no right whatsoever to claim grant-in-aid
from the Government. Nothing is pointed out on behalf of the
petitioners from any Act, Rules, Regulations or any other material to
show that the petitioners would have a right to claim grant-in-aid. In
the year 2003, the Government had decided not to grant permission to
any society or institution to run the special schools. However,
considering the fact that certain non-governmental-organizations and
institutions that wanted to do some social work by opening schools for
disabled children were not able to do so, the Government issued a
Government Resolution dated 11/08/2004 removing the ban on grant
of permission to run such special schools, only if the society or
institution desirous of running the special school gave an undertaking in
writing that it would not claim grant-in-aid from the Government at any
point of time. With open eyes, the petitioners acted upon the
Government Resolution and gave the undertakings in writing that they
9 J-WP-5181-13.odt
would not claim the grant-in-aid from the Government, in future. One
of the petitions is filed in the year 2013, even before the State
Government had decided to bring some special schools on grant-in-aid
by the Government Resolution dated 08/04/2015. We do not find any
merit in the challenge to the Government Resolution dated
11/08/2004. The said Government Resolution is not contrary to the
provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 1995. Section 26 of the Act of
1995 only provides that the appropriate governments and the local
authorities shall ensure that every child with a disability has access to
free education till he attains the age of 18 years. There are several aided
special schools that provide free education to the disabled children. The
Section does not provide that every institution that is desirous of
starting the school for the children with disability would be entitled to
receive 100 % grant-in-aid from the government. If the children with
disability are not provided free education in a proper environment, it
would be necessary for them to approach this Court or any other
authority or forum for ventilation of their grievance. By taking recourse
to the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 1995, the petitioners cannot
claim grant-in-aid from the Government, as of a right, moreso when the
petitioners have given the undertaking in writing to the State
Government in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated
11/08/2004 that they would not claim grant-in-aid from the State
Government. We find that only 746 special schools are brought on
10 J-WP-5181-13.odt
grant-in-aid and there are 963 special schools that are not brought on
grant-in-aid by the Government. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed
on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the Government may think
of providing grant-in-aid to some more special schools in future.
However, that would not mean that the petitioners would have a right
to immediately claim grant-in-aid from the State Government, specially
when they have given the undertaking in writing to the State
Government that they would not claim the grant-in-aid from the
Government. Merely because one school is considered as a special case
and grant-in-aid is provided to the said school, the petitioners would
not have a right to claim grant-in-aid for the school run by the
petitioners for the girl students, as a special case. As and when an
occasion arises in future, the Government may consider the cases of the
other schools that are not receiving grant-in-aid and may provide grant-
in-aid to them.
Since the petitioners cannot claim grant-in-aid from the
Government as of a right, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Hence, we dismiss the writ petitions with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
