Bombay High Court
Master Pavan Mundaware ,Through ... vs The Principal/ Head Mistress Of ... on 13 September, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
Shridhar Sutar 1 8-wp-9096.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9096 OF 2017
Master Pavan Mundaware
Through Guardian
Jayashree Vijay Mundaware,
Adult Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at 4, L.G. Castle Apt,
Govind Nagar, Nashik 422009 ... Petitioner
Versus
1) The Principal/Head Mistress of
Ashoka Universal School
Chandsi/Wadala, Nashik
2) Ashoka Education Foundation,
a public charitable Trust, through
its trustee Mr. Ashok Motilal Kataria
having its office at Anshuman
near Forest Nursery, Gangapur Road,
Nashik 422013
3) The Deputy Director of Education
Nashik Road, Nashik.
4) The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Nashik
5) The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nashik
6) The Administrative officer
Shikshan Mandal, Nashik
Municipal Corporation, Nashik
1 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:18:26 :::
Shridhar Sutar 2 8-wp-9096.17.doc
7) Director of Education, Pune
8) Commissioner of Police, Nashik
9) State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary, Ministry
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Siddharthshankar A. Sharma Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. A.A. Garge, for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. A.P. Vanarse AGP for State.
.....
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.) : -
1. The Petitioner has again filed this writ Petition though there
is a specific order passed by this Court after hearing the parties as
the Petitioner was expelled for the reasons which are recorded in
Judgment dated 21st July, 2015 in Writ Petition No. 5378 of 2013.
Between the same parties for the similar issues and based upon
earlier High Court order dated 16th August, 2013 passed against
the Petitioner. The operative order of the Judgment is as under.
2 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 3 8-wp-9096.17.doc
"................
................
a) We hold that Writ Petition filed by Petitioner is
maintainable against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Un-
aided Minority Educational School/Institution) in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
b) We hereby declare that the impugned action/orders of
expelling the Petitioner's son and daughter are illegal,
impermissible and bad in law, including the endorsement
"Terminated because of parents indecent and illegal
behavior", therefore quashed and set aside accordingly.
c) We direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to promote Master
Pawan Mundaware to VII standard for the academic
year 201516 and permit him to continue future study in
the School along with other students. However, it will be
subject to any eligibility test of VI Standard, only if
necessary and/or required.
d) The Petitioner to deposit arrears of fees, if any, without
late fee, within one month from today and shall continue
to pay the regular fees along with other students.
e) The Petitioner and her husband have already filed
written undertakings to this Court in view of order dated
16 August 2013. That will continue without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of the parties in this Petition,
till the Petitioner's son complete his education in the
Institute/School. They have also filed further
undertakings to this Court that they will not make any
complaint before any forum or any authority against
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
f) The Petitioner and her husband shall abide by the
assurances given to this Court which have been recorded
earlier. The Petitioner and her husband not to disturb the
peace and harmony of the school.
(These directions be implemented forthwith.)
3 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 4 8-wp-9096.17.doc
g) They shall endeavour to settle the dispute/conflicts
and/or compound the Criminal complaints, if any.
h) The Petitioner and her husband have already given
undertaking that they will not enter the premises of the
school of Respondents, unless the school Authorities call
them either for attending the parents' meetings or for
any other purposes.
i) Liberty is granted to the parents, in case they want to
meet the child, to apply for appropriate permission and
Respondents-Institution/School to consider the same
sympathetically.
j) Both the parties to maintain good and cordial relations
in all respects.
k) The parties are at liberty to settle the matter and/or
apply for appropriate order in case of any difficulty.
l) It is desirable that the Respondent-State Government
and/or other Authority should frame some policy and/or
some rules and regulations to deal with such aspects of
expulsion of the students and dealing with the internal
dispute between the parents and Management and/or
other authorities and provide necessary alternative and
effective mechanism to resolve the conflicts of such
nature.
m) Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
n) Rule made absolute accordingly.
o) There shall be no order as to costs.
..................
.................."
(Emphasis added)
4 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 5 8-wp-9096.17.doc
2. Petitioner as stated, not complied with the above order.
Petitioner's conduct remained the same as recorded in affidavit
filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The statement is made by
learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents that except
Petitioner, all other parents around 3000 students have paid/been
paying the fee so prescribed by the Respondents for 2016-2017
and 2017-2018 also.
3. The Petitioner's grievance, even if any of the fee structure
that need to be considered by the concerned department in view
of specific provisions of law which regulate such fee structure also.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner has agitated the
same issue which was agitated in earlier occasion as recorded in
the Judgment after hearing the parties. In our view, Petitioner
should have complied with and follow those directions/order.
5. The present Petition is filed in July 2017 against order of
expulsion dated 1st April, 2017. There is no justification for such
delay. It appears that petitioner/parents are not interested in
pursuing the further education in the present institution.
5 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 6 8-wp-9096.17.doc
6. Considering the interest of student, on 14th August, 2017,
permitted the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 35,000/-
within a period of one week and balance within two weeks
thereafter, for the 9th standard. The petitioner has not deposited
balance amount.
7. The statement is made that no further amount is deposited
till this date. We are therefore, inclined to grant the time. But the
Petitioner through the advocate still agitating the same issue i.e.
the said amount, is nothing but exorbitant fee/capitation fee. This
can not be reason for the Petitioner not to follow the earlier order
dated 21st July, 2015.
8. We are inclined to observe that the petitioner is at liberty to
apply to the Education Department concerned for further
admission in other nearby school. The concerned department to
deal with the same for another school in accordance with law.
9. The reliance is placed by filing short synopsis, compilation
and submission and agitated the same issues by referring to the
judgments of this Court of which facts are totally different. This
6 of 7
Shridhar Sutar 7 8-wp-9096.17.doc
Court after hearing the parties on identical facts and
circumstances, heard the matter, and passed the order/judgment.
The extract of operative part which is reproduced above, which
deals with the similar conduct and the agitation. Therefore, we
see no case is made out by the Petitioner. The Petition is dismissed
with above liberty. No costs.
(BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
7 of 7
