Magas Samaj Seva Mandal Deotala vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8582 Bom

                                                                 W.P. No.7539/2006
                                         (( 1 ))

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              
                          WRIT PETITION NO.7539 OF 2006



 Magas Samaj Seva Mandal,
 at Deotala, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur,
 through its President
 Ramdas s/o Jaisingh Chavan,
 Age 52 years, Occu. Agri.                         ...      PETITIONER 

                                      
          VERSUS


 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          through Secretary,
          Women and Child Welfare 
          Development Department, 
          Mantralaya, Mumbai
          (Copy to be served on Govt.
          Pleader, High Court of Judicature
          of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)

 2.       The Secretary,
          Women and Child Welfare
          Development Department,
          Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai.

 3.       The Commissioner,
          Women and Child Welfare
          Development Department
          Maharashtra State Pune                   ...      RESPONDENTS


                                  .....
 Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner
 Shri B.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondents
                                  .....




::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017                       ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:00 :::
                                                                    W.P. No.7539/2006
                                        (( 2 ))

                                CORAM:         RAVINDRA .V. GHUGE AND
                                               SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 9th NOVEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order

dated 7.6.2004, passed by respondent No.3, granting financial aid

to the petitioner institution from the academic year 2004-2005.

Grievance is that, the petitioner has been operating a Balak

Ashram from the academic year 2003-2004. Hence, the grants

should be extended from 2003-2004.

2. We have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri

N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner

and the learned A.G.P. on behalf of the respondent.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that, after the

inspection of the petitioner's Balak Ashram was conducted on

12.9.2003, permission to start the Balak Ashram was granted by

the Government Resolution dated 26.2.2004. The said permission

is from the academic year 2003-2004. The impugned order has

been passed without jurisdiction and without taking into account

that the Balak Ashram is being conducted by the petitioner in an

appropriate manner, all facilities are supplied, infrastructure is

available and the children admitted are not deprived of any

amenities.

W.P. No.7539/2006 (( 3 ))

4. Learned A.G.P. points out that, the inspection report

pursuant to the inspection conducted on 12.9.2003 is only

recommendatory in nature. By the Government Resolution dated

26.2.2004, the permission was granted to the petitioner on grant-

in-aid basis. The said Government Resolution cannot be granted a

retrospective effect.

5. After considering the submissions of the learned

Advocates, we find from the inspection report at Sr.No.10, 12(3), 19

and 20 that, when it came to the amenities to be supplied and

compliances to be done by the management desirous of starting the

Balak Ashram, it is recorded that the petitioner management has

stated after the approval is granted to operate Balak Ashram, the

amenities would be provide and the documents and other aspects

would be maintained. Even as regards supply of nutritious food

and medicines, the management has stated that, it would grant

those amenities after the approval is granted. We are, therefore, of

the view that, insofar as the academic year 2003-2004 is

concerned, the petitioner had disclosed its willingness to supply

basic amenities after the approval is granted, which means that the

same were not available when the inspection was carried out.

6. The Government Resolution dated 26.2.2004 would

indicate that the petitioner was granted the permission to operate

the Vasantrao Naik Balak Ashram at Shingoli on grant-in-aid basis.

The last paragraph of the Government Resolution states that, the

W.P. No.7539/2006 (( 4 ))

grants for the said institution would be as per the audit sanction

granted in the financial year 2003-2004. It does not in any way

suggest that the petitioner was granted post-facto sanction, thereby

legitimizing the commencement of the Balak Ashram for the

academic year 2003-2004.

7. In the light of the above, we find that, when no

sanction was granted to the Balak Ashram for the academic year

2003-2004, the petitioner had commenced the said school.

Needless to state, the petitioner would, therefore, not be entitled for

the grants for the academic years 2003-2004 and the same would

be available as per the order dated 7.6.2004 pursuant to the

permission granted by Government Resolution dated 26.2.2004.

8. This petition being devoid of merits, is, therefore,

dismissed. Rule is discharged.

          ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL )                  ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE )
                  JUDGE                                 JUDGE




 fmp/