Bombay High Court
Ashok Shikshan Sanstha, ... vs Director Of Education (Secondary ... on 4 December, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1
wp4944.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4944/2021
1. Ashok Shikshan Sanstha,
Ashok Nagar, Tah. Dhamangaon Railway,
Dist. Amravati, through it's President
Mr. Sudhirkumar Narayanrao Shende,
aged about 65 Yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Ashok Nagar, Tah. Dhamangaon
Railway, Dist. Amravati.
2. Pramod S/o Shriramji Hatwar,
aged about 50 Yrs., Occ. In-charge
Headmaster, Devrao Thakre Vidyalaya
Ashoknagar Ex-officio Secretary,
Ashok Education Society, Ashoknagar,
Tah. Dhamangaon Railway,
Dist. Amravati. ..Petitioners.
..Vs..
1. Director of Education (Secondary and
Higher Secondary), Maharashtra State
Central Building, Pune.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
3. Deputy Director of Education
(Secondary), Amravati Division,
Amravati.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
through it's Principal Secretary,
Department of Education and
Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ..Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate with Mr. V.R. Mundra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2
wp4944.2021.odt
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATED :- 4.12.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, learned A.G.P. who appears by waiving
notice for all the respondents.
2. The issue involved in this petition lies in a narrow compass and,
therefore, we are of the view that this petition can be disposed of
immediately on taking note of grievance of the petitioners. Hence,
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is about the need for speedy
disposal of the appeal which petitioner No.1 has filed under the
provisions of Section 3(4) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions
(Management) Act, 1976 (for short "Act of 1976"). Learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that the decision impugned in the appeal
which is dated 1st November, 2021 taken by respondent No.1 directs
taking over of the management of schools run by petitioner No.1 and
even though this can be done, under the Act of 1976, there is a
procedure prescribed for doing so under the said Act. He submits that
wp4944.2021.odt
the first pre-requisite is of nurturing of satisfaction by respondent No.1
that the management in educational institution has neglected to
perform any of the duties imposed on it under any law for the time
being in force. He submits that this condition can be fulfilled only
when there is available before an authority like respondent No.1,
some objective material to satisfy about the neglect of performance of
the duties.
4. The second condition, as submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, is of giving of reasonable opportunity of showing cause
against the proposed action by an officer like respondent No.1. It is
submitted that after the first condition is fulfilled, it is necessary for
authority like respondent No.1 to issue a show cause to the
management in order to give it a reasonable opportunity of explaining
it's stand against the proposed action.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present
case, after the inspection report was made available to respondent
No.1, respondent No.1 was required to issue a show cause notice to
the petitioners as required under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1976 and
then proceed to pass the order which he deems fit on the date of
hearing conducted by him. But, learned counsel further submits that
wp4944.2021.odt
this procedure has not been followed in instant case and directly
without giving any reasonable opportunity of showing cause against
the proposed action, the impugned order of taking over management
of the schools run by petitioner No.1 society has been passed by
respondent No.1 which is clearly violative of not only the procedure
prescribed in Section 3(1) of the Act of 1976 but also of principles of
natural justice which flow from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with this
grievance, an appeal has been filed before respondent No.4 but, it is
not being heard and, therefore, it is apprehended that the automatic
stay which operates on the impugned order for a period of 15 days,
now, would come to an end and the petitioners would lose the right to
manage their schools without being heard in the matter.
7. In view of the above, we find that the purpose of this petition
can be served by issuing appropriate directions.
(i) The petition is partly allowed.
(ii) Respondent No.4 is directed to dispose of the appeal filed
against the impugned order, as per law, as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within two months from the date of the order. Till the
wp4944.2021.odt
time appeal is decided in terms of this order, there shall be stay to the
effect and operation of the impugned order and for a further period of
15 days in case the appeal is decided against the petitioners.
(iii) Rule accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO
TAMBASKAR
Private Secretary
Signing Date:04.12.2021 17:31
