Baliraj Shikshan Sansstha vs The State Of Mah And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8688 Bom

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 6405 OF 2007 

Baliraj Shikshan Sanstha
Someshwar, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani,
Through its Director,
Kashiram s/o Vithalrao Ankade,
Age : 51 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o.: At & Tq. Palam, 
District Parbhani                                     .. PETITIONER

       VERSUS

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through Under Secretary,
       School Education Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

2.     Divisional Deputy Director
       of Education, 

3.     Education Officer (Secondary),
       Zilla Parishad, Parbhani

4.     Prayag Seva Bhavi Sanstha,
       Parbhani, At & Dist. Parbhani
       through its Secretary                          .. RESPONDENTS


                         ----
Mr. P.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Smt.S.S. Raut, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 
Mr. U.R. Auti, Advocate holding for Mr. S.B. Talekar, 
Advocate for respondent No.4 
                         ----

                                       CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
                                               SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 14th November, 2017

2 wp6405-2007

ORAL JUDGMENT :

After hearing learned counsel for the parties,

it appears that in place of a school, which had been run

by respondent No.4 - Institution by name Shri Sadguru

Sanchaleshwar Vidyalaya, recognition of which had been

withdrawn, consequently, need of running a school at

Naikota appears to have arisen.

2. Petitioner claims that all the prerequisites

for starting school at Naikota had been complied with by

it and accordingly under communication dated 23 rd June,

2004, new secondary schools were allowed to be started

to 538 educational institutions wherein, according to

petitioner, its name had figured at serial No. 50.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly

concedes to the position that said communication dated

23rd June, 2004 could not be placed on record at the time

of filing of the petition. He submits that it appears

that subsequently another proposal was submitted by

respondent No.4 for starting new school, which had been

granted. He further fairly refers to that the petitioner

had not pressed for grant of interim relief since

respondent No.4 had already started running school since

3 wp6405-2007

June, 2004. Learned counsel, during the course of

hearing, refers to some documents annexed, stating that

those were prerequisites while submitting petitioner's

proposal.

4. Smt. Raut, learned A.G.P. tenders across the

bar communication dated 23rd June, 2004 alongwith its

appendices, which shows that in all 538 educational

institutions were allowed to start secondary schools.

According to learned A.G.P., petitioner's name does not

figure in the list of institutions referred to in the

said communication.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 states that

the present writ petition has been filed in 2007 for

grant of proposal which had been made in 2004 and since

then, respondent No.4 has been running the school

smoothly without breaches or hitches. There is no

substance in the writ petition.

6. Taking overall view of the matter, since

petitioner in support of its claim has not submitted any

material before this Court, particularly when

communication dated 23rd June, 2004 on which claim is

4 wp6405-2007

based does not support the same, we do not consider that

claim made by the petitioner is worth consideration.

Writ Petition, as such, is dismissed and disposed of.

Rule is accordingly discharged.

     [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]             [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
             JUDGE                            JUDGE

 
npj/wp6405-2007