Bombay High Court
Vasantraoji Naik Magasvargiya ... vs The State Of Maharashtra & 2 Others on 4 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.3049.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3049 OF 2002.
Vasantraoji Naik Magasvargiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Dusarbid,
Through its President - Ramrao
s/o Khuba Rathod, Aged about
29 years, R/o Pimparkhed,
Tq. Sindkhedraja, Dist. Buldana. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032,
2] Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Region, Amravati,
3] Matruteerth Gramin Vikas &
Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha,
Sindkhedraja, Through its
President - Nazir Hussain
Manzur-Ul-Hasan Quazi,
Aged : about 32 years,
R/o Sindkhedraja, Tahsil
Sindkhedraja, District
Buldana,
4] Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana,
5] The Secretary, Maharashtra
State Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Board,
Amravati Division, Amravati. ...... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:53:12 :::
2 WP.3049.02
Mr. A.P. Darda, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. T.H. Khan, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4.
Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for respondent no.3.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 4, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
, J.)
1] The petitioner educational institute assails order dated
2.8.2002 passed by respondent no.1 allowing respondent no.3 to
open a school in its vicinity. This Court did not grant any interim order
and hence, S.L.P. No. 21327/02 was preferred before the Hon'ble
Apex Court. Leave was granted and it came to be registered as Civil
Appeal No. 4016/03. Apex Court on 22.11.2002 granted interim relief
to petitioner and hence, school of respondent no.3 could not
commence.
2] Civil Appeal No. 4016/03 has been disposed of by Apex
Court on 6.5.2003 by observing that interim order dated 22.11.2002
passed by it shall enure to the benefit of parties till disposal of Writ
Petition.
3] Accordingly, we have heard Mr. A.P. Darda, learned
3 WP.3049.02
Advocate for petitioner, Ms. T.H. Khan, learned A.G.P. for respondent
nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Mr. A. Parchure, learned Advocate for respondent
no.3 rival school. Nobody appears for respondent no.5. Mr. A.
Parchure upon instructions states that as school could not commence
for past more than 15 years, respondent no.3 in changed situation
now does not find any point in establishing one more school in that
area. According to him, school can be now conveniently located in
adjacent area where there is need. He adds that respondent no.3
shall accordingly move respondent nos. 1 & 2 for necessary
permission but then permission, if granted, should be on no grant
basis.
4] Learned A.G.P. is opposing request of Mr. A. Parchure,
learned Advocate for respondent no.3. She states that there was
subsequent change in policy and now a substantive law has been
enacted. The application of respondent no.3, if legally tenable, will
have to be scrutinized as per that law and will be subject to terms and
conditions stipulated therein.
5] It is apparent that in the present matter such a request of
respondent no.3 cannot be evaluated. The application, if moved by
respondent no.3, has to be as per law and respondent nos. 1 & 2 can
4 WP.3049.02
thereafter examine various aspects including need of the area and
the perspective plan, if any.
6] Hence, contention that as respondent no.3 was earlier
granted a permission on no grant basis, new permission should be
treated as one in its lieu and, therefore, on same terms and
conditions cannot be accepted by us. However, respondent no.3 can
very well make such request to respondent nos. 1 & 2 and it is open
to respondent nos. 1 & 2 to consider the same as per law.
7] In this situation, as respondent no.3 is not posing any
threat for petitioner, we make rule absolute in terms of prayer clause
(A). No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
