Bombay High Court
Gurudeo Vidya Prasarak Mandal, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 15 January, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 22 wp35.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.35 OF 2021
Gurudeo Vidya Prasarak Mandal,
Through its Secretary,
Dnyaneshwar Pundlikrao Raut,
Age @62 yrs, R/o Shanit Vatika,
Anjangaon Surji Road, Paratwada,
Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati. ....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Minister for Tribal
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Commissioner for Tribal
Development, State of Maharashtra,
Nasik.
3) The Additional Tribal Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
4) The Project Officer,
Ekatmik Adiwasi Vikas Prakalpa,
Dharni, Dist. Amravati.
...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.A. Vaishnav, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri I.J. Damle, AGP for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JANUARY 15, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel of the parties.
2 22 wp35.21.odt
(2) The petitioner is represented by Shri M.A. Vaishnav
and the respondent-Authorities are represented by learned
Assistant Government Pleader Shri I.J.Damle.
(3) In this writ petition challenge is to the order dated
19.11.2020 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the respondent
no.1 rejected the application for stay filed by the petitioner in one
line, which is reproduced hereinunder :
^^vfiykFkhZ ;kapk LFkfxrh feG.;kckcrpk vtZ vekU; dj.;kr ;sr
vkgs-"
(4) The petitioner is a society duly registered under the
provisions of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and running a
resident Ashram School at village Mhasona, Taluka Achalpur,
District Amravati imparting education from 1st standard to 12th
standard. The respondent no.4-Project Officer, Ekatmik Adiwasi
Vikas Prkalpa, Dharni visited the school on 09.02.2020 and issued
show-cause notice on 11.02.2020 pointing out certain lacunae in
the school. The said show-cause notice was received on
19.02.2020 by petitioner and it was replied on 20.02.2020 is the
statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
petition itself. It is also pointed out in the writ petition that in the
reply to the show-cause notice on 18.02.2020 the Project Officer
directed to transfer the students to other school.
3 22 wp35.21.odt
(5) Be that as it may, the Authorities passed the order dated
22.09.2020 ordering de-recognition of the petitioner-school. The said
order was carried in appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e.
respondent No.1- Minister for Tribal Development Department.
Along with said appeal an application for stay was also filed.
However, Authority was not taking up hearing of the stay application
therefore the petitioner approached to this Court by filing Writ
Petition (stamp) No.10885 of 2020 and on 03.11.2020 the Division
Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that
the application for stay be heard on 12.11.2020. It was also directed
by the Division Bench that if the appeal is not disposed of along with
the application for stay, the Authority shall make earnest endeavors
to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months after the
application for stay is disposed of. In paragraph No.6 of the order
dated 03.11.2020, in the earlier writ petition, the Division Bench of
this Court observed as under:
"6. Needless to observe, the petitioner shall be
granted adequate opportunity of hearing as
well as liberty to lead evidence in support of its
case. Should the petitioner suffer any adverse
order, the order must have the support of
reasons."
4 22 wp35.21.odt
(6) After the disposal of the writ petition by the Division
Bench the stay application was taken up for consideration and it was
dismissed by the one line order. After perusal of the directions given
by the Division Bench, which is reproduced hereinabove, it is clear
that the Appellate Authority did not supplement any reasons as to
why the stay application is required to be rejected.
(7) The appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the de-
recognition of school order is pending before the Hon'ble Minister.
As per directions in order dated 03.11.2020, the Division Bench of
this Court has observed that if the appeal is not decided along with
stay application it can be decided within a period of four months.
That period is yet to over.
(8) Since application for stay is rejected without assigning
any reasons, the respondent No.1 is directed to decide the
application, strictly in accordance with law and if the Appellate
Authority is not finding favour with the contentions raised by the
petitioner then the said Authority must supplement the reasons as
observed in order dated 03.11.2020.
(9) The petitioner is directed to appear before the Appellate
Authority on 28.01.2021. On the said date or on the convenient date
5 22 wp35.21.odt
to the respondent No.1 within a period of 15 days from 28.01.2021,
the Appellate Authority shall give the hearing to the petitioner afresh
on the application for stay and pass the order in the light of
directions given by this Court on 03.11.2020. It is made clear that it
will be also open for the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal
along with stay application, if the Appellate Authority choses to
decide the same.
(10) Needless to mention, order granting status quo as on
27.11.2020 to continue till decision of the stay application.
(11) The writ petition is disposed of.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
Wagh
