Bombay High Court
New Education ... vs The Education Officer(Sec.) And ... on 25 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp4044.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4044 OF 2002
New Education Society,
through its President
Sureshchandra s/o Rameshwar
Joshi, Aged about 60 years,
Registered address - Gandhi
Vidyalaya, Badnera Road,
Badnera, District-Amravati. ,.. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1] The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
Amravati.
2] Madhukar s/o Pandri Badnerkar,
Aged about 56 years,
Adhoc Administrator/Headmaster,
Gandhi Vidyalaya, Badnera,
District-Amravati. .. Respondents
..........
Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for petitioner,
Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for respondent no.1,
Nobody for respondent no.2 though served.
..........
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 25, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
1] Heard Dr. R.S. Sundaram, learned counsel for
petitioner and Ms. T.H. Khan, learned AGP for respondent
no.1. Nobody for respondent no.2 though served.
2 wp4044.02.odt
2] After hearing conducted on 8.10.2002,
Education Officer, in the wake of dispute going on
between trustees in relation to management of a
educational institutions, ordered that all powers to
manage the affairs of school should be given to
Headmaster who also happened to be Secretary of the
society. He also directed formation of Advisory
Committee to assist him. Three-member Advisory
Committee is to consist of one member out of alleged
new Managing Committee, one member from old
Managing Committee and one representative of
government through education department. Accordingly,
on 31.10.2002, the Headmaster of school in his capacity
as Administrator, forwarded a letter to one
Sureshchandra R. Joshi, who claimed to be elected as
President in new body. He sought name of representative
to complete formation of Advisory Committee. The
petitioner-education society through Shri Joshi
approached this Court in present Writ Petition on
11.11.2002. They questioned the order dated 28.10.2002
and also sought stay of that order and
letter/communication dated 31.10.2002. This court has
on 8.11.2002 allegedly issued notice before admission
and 5.12.2002, after hearing counsel for petitioner and
3 wp4044.02.odt
respondent no.1, admitted the matter for final hearing.
Nobody appeared for respondent no.2 even at that
juncture. Impugned order dated 28.10.2002 and
communication dated 31.10.2002 came to be stayed.
3] The stay order operates even today. With the
result, after about 15 years of initial order dated
28.10.2002, the petitioner continues management.
Advocate Dr. Sundaram has added that there have been
subsequent elections and changes in the management.
According to him, the management, elected as per law, is
now administering the affairs of petitioner-educational
institution. We need not go into this subsequent event.
It is always open to respondent no.1 to proceed further in
the matter as per law, if any contingency arises. It is
also open to other group, if any, to oppose petitioner as
per law.
4] Hence, in this situation, we make rule absolute
in terms of order dated 5.12.2002 and allow writ petition.
Consequently order dated 28.10.2002 and
communication dated 31.10.2002 are quashed and set
aside. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande
