Bombay High Court
Chandrasagar Bahuudeshiya Sevabhavi ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 5 December, 2023
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2023:BHC-AUG:25418-DB
1 wp 3229.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3229 OF 2023
Chandrasagar Bahuudeshiya Sevabhavi
Sanstha, Aurad Shahajani,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur,
Through its President,
Balaji s/o Shivajirao Bhandare,
Age : 41 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary
Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Hon'ble Chief Minister,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
3. The Commissioner for Handicap
Welfare, Maharashtra State,
Pune.
4. The Regional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare, Latur.
5. The District Social Welfare Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
6. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
2 wp 3229.23
7. Vidyabhushan Yuvak Mandal,
Buland Nagar, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur,
Through its Secretary. .. Respondents
Shri R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w Shri P. S. Dighe, i/by
Shri V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. B. Yawalkar, Addl.G.P for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4.
Shri U. B. Bondar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 12.10.2023
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 05.12.2023
JUDGMENT (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :
-
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of learned counsel for respective parties, taken up for final
hearing at the admission stage.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the
order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2/Hon'ble
Minister thereby (i) approving the report of the Commissioner
dated 27.09.2018, (ii) confirming the orders dated 28.06.2022
cancelling the transfer of three schools, made in favour of the
petitioner, and restoring the schools to the respondent No. 7 and
(iii) directing to take steps to grant licence to run the school to
the respondent No. 7.
3. The petitioner is an educational institution and claims to
run :
3 wp 3229.23
(a) Indira Gandhi Niwasi Apang Vidyalaya,
(b) Swami Ramanand Teerth Niwasi Mukbadhir Vidyalaya
and
(c) Rajiv Gandhi Niwasi Mati-Mand Vidyalaya
All these schools situate in Latur District. These are the
special schools meant for differently-abled students. Initially, in
the year 1994-1995, the respondent No. 7 was granted
permission to start these schools on Grant in Aid basis at Aurad
Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. From the year 2011-2012
the schools were shifted to Udgir by the respondent No. 7.
4. There is chequered history of various rounds of litigation,
enquiries, reports and the orders passed by various
authorities/Courts. The petitioner and the respondent No. 7
have rival claims over the schools. To decide the controversy
involved in this petition, it is not necessary to reproduce the
history. Shorn off the unnecessary details, we propose to
concentrate on relevant facts, submissions of the parties and the
reasoning. Following are the relevant facts :
i. The respondent No. 7 was permitted to run three schools at
Aurad (Shahajani), Tq. Nilanga. Because of the detrimental
activities, by Government Resolution dated 05.07.2023 the
schools were transferred to the petitioner from the respondent
No. 7.
ii. By orders dated 16.06.2015 and 06.08.2015 the registration
4 wp 3229.23
of the schools in question was renewed in favour of the petitioner
from 01.04.2011 to 01.11.2013.
iii. On 02.07.2015, the respondent No. 7 made representation
to the Hon'ble Minister to restore the schools to it by transferring
the schools from the petitioner.
iv. On 27.07.2017, the respondent No. 3-Commissioner
prepared a report directing to recover the amount of salaries
from the petitioner, which was disbursed for the period
01.04.2011 to 01.11.2013.
v. On 06.04.2018, an order was passed by the Hon'ble
Minister cancelling the licence/registration of the petitioner and
to recover the amount of the salary wrongly disbursed to the
employees.
vi. On 27.09.2018, the respondent No. 3/Commissioner
prepared a report holding that the petitioner was involved in
illegal activities and misappropriation.
vii. On 17.10.2019, judgment and order was passed in Writ
Petition No. 1100 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 6628 of 2019
quashing report dated 27.07.2017 of the respondent No. 3 and
order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Minister. It was
directed to hear the parties and to take decision afresh.
viii. On 28.06.2022, an order was passed by the Hon'ble
5 wp 3229.23
Minister directing to transfer the schools from petitioner to the
respondent No. 7.
ix. On 08.09.2022 an order was passed in Writ Petition No.
7132 of 2022, quashing the order of Hon'ble Minister dated
28.06.2022 and remanding the matter for fresh consideration
after hearing the parties.
x. The matter was heard by the Hon'ble Minister, litigating
sides made submissions and the report submitted by the
respondent No. 3/Commissioner was also considered.
xi. On 10.03.2023, the impugned order was passed by the
Hon'ble Minister transferring the schools from the petitioner to
the respondent No. 7.
5. Admitted facts are as follows :
I. On 05.07.2013, three schools of the respondent No. 7 were
transferred to the petitioner and the schools were with the
petitioner till passing of the impugned order.
II. The petitioner was granted renewal of registration of three
schools upto 31.03.2024, which has not been cancelled till date.
III. The respondent No. 3 filed its report before the Hon'ble
Minister in the last hearing conducted by the Hon'ble Minister.
IV. Order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the Commissioner and
6 wp 3229.23
order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Minister were
quashed by the High Court by common judgment and order
17.10.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2019 and Writ
Petition No. 6628 of 2019.
V. The respondent No. 7 has applied for the registration, but
due to the interim orders passed in the present petition, it has
not been granted.
VI. By the impugned order dated 10.03.2023 the Hon'ble
Minister directed to transfer three schools from the petitioner to
the respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 is further directed to
secure registration.
6. Impugned order is based upon the following findings.
a. The recovery of Rs. 2,02,95,479/- taken out against the
petitioner for illegal disbursement of salary from 01.04.2011 to
01.11.2013 by the orders of Commissioner has been quashed and
set aside by the High Court vide a petition filed by the petitioner.
b. There was no report submitted by the respondent No.
3/Commissioner in respect of allegations against the petitioner
for not accommodating the previous employees of the schools and
for illegally recruiting the new employees.
c. There was a resolution dated 30.05.2016 passed by the
respondent No. 7 for not running the schools at Aurad
(Shahajani).
7 wp 3229.23
d. The registration of two schools of the petitioner is renewed
upto 31.03.2024 and for the third school the renewal is awaited.
e. Though there is impediment of clause No. 3 in Government
Resolution dated 15.03.2019 for transferring the schools to the
respondent No. 7-original institution, however, the respondent
No. 7 being the original institution, has a preferential right. The
schools can be restored to the respondent No. 7 on certain
conditions.
7. The litigating sides have referred to various Acts and
policies. They have referred to Section 49 to Section 51 of the
Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred
as to the 'Disability Act'). They have referred to the
Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976
and Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Transfer of
Management ) Act, 1971. They have also referred to the
provisions of the Maharashtra Special Schools for Disables and
Training Center Code, 2018 (for short "Handicap School Code")
promulgated by Government Resolution dated 18.07.2018. The
clause No. 83 is as follows :
(83) उपकमांचे हसतांतर व सथलांतर
¼,d½ Lo;alsoh laLFkkekQZr pkyfo.;kr ;s.kk&;k "kklu ekU;rk
izkIr o uksan.kh izek.ki= izkIr viaxkaP;k dk;e Lo#ih fouk
vuqnkfur] fouk vuqnkfur] vuqnkfur viaaxkaP;k fo"ks'k
"kkGk o izf"k{k.k dsanz] layXu olfrx`g] efrean ckyx`gkaps
gLrkarj o LFkykarj laLFksl djko;kps vlY;kl ¼ifjf'V u
8 wp 3229.23
ƒƒ½ e/khy "kklu fu.kZ; fnukad 16.09.2017 vFkok "kklu
;ke/;s osGksosGh lq/kkj.kk djsy R;kizek.ks dj.;kr ;sbZy-
¼nksu½ l{ke izkf/kdk&;kP;k ekU;rsf"kok; laLFksus ojhy midze
gLrkarj o LFkykarj dsY;kl lacf/kr laLFksl R;k R;k
midzekdfjrk fnysys uksan.kh izek.ki= jn~n dj.;kr ;sbZy
o "kklukdMwu ns.;kr ;s.kkjs vuqnku rkRdkG can dj.;kr
;sbZy-
8. There is reference to the Maharashtra Educational
Institutions (Transfer of Management ) Act, 1971 and the
Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976.
But impugned order pertains to transfer and shifting of Special
Schools. It's nobody's case that the procedure contemplated
under any of above Acts was ever undertaken. The transfer and
shifting of special schools are governed by Handicap School
Code.
9. The Government Resolution dated 15.02.2019, produced at
page No. 275 is a policy laid down by the Government to regulate
transfer and shifting of the special schools. Clause No. 1 (16)
refers to the objective satisfaction of the competent authority for
arriving at the conclusion that if the school is not being run in
accordance with the conditions stipulated by the Government or
it is detrimental to the aims and objects and the students, then
the competent authorities are empowered to transfer and shift
the schools.
10. The learned senior counsel Mr. R. N. Dhorde representing
the petitioner has made following submissions.
9 wp 3229.23
A. The impugned order is without jurisdiction because the
Hon'ble Minister is not the competent authority under the
Disability Act, but the power was entrusted to the Deputy
Commissioner as per G. R. dated 27.01.2014.
B. The orders of the revocation of the registration of the
schools passed against the respondent No. 7 were confirmed by
the High Court, hence it is not entitled for the restoration of the
schools. Impugned order amounts to sitting over the judgment of
the High Court in Writ Petition No. 4175 of 2013.
C. There was no application by the respondent No. 7 seeking
restoration of the school as the registration was already
cancelled, hence order of restoration is perverse and arbitrary.
D. The earlier successive attempts of the respondent No. 7 to
secure the restoration of the schools had failed. The schools are
illegally restored.
E. The restoration of the schools is against clause 1(3) of the
G. R. dated 15.02.2019.
F. The ex-parte order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Minister was quashed by High Court in Writ Petition No. 7132 of
2022 by order dated 08.09.2022. Thereafter no proper enquiry
was conducted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
G. The respondent No. 7 is not running the schools because
10 wp 3229.23
there was no restoration of the schools to the respondent No. 7.
H. There is no application for registration of the schools by the
respondent No. 7 till this date.
I. The learned senior counsel relied upon the judgments of
the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrika Jha Vs.State of
Bihar reported in AIR 1984 SC 322 and in the matter of
Raghunath Rai Bareja and another Vs. Punjab National Bank
and others reported in (2007) 3 SCC 230.
11. The learned counsel Mr. S. S. Thombre for the respondent
No. 7 has made following submissions.
(i) It is not a case of transferring of the schools because the
petitioner was allotted the schools in question in the year 1995.
It is a matter of restoration and the Hon'ble Minister is
empowered to restore the schools.
(ii) The impugned order is passed after considering
submissions of the parties, report of the Commissioner and
extending opportunity of hearing to the stake holders, which
cannot be faulted.
(iii) There was no registration of the school from the period
2011 to 2013 and the schools were not in operation. Despite that
fraudulently and by misrepresentation the petitioner got
disbursed the salary of the employees to the tune of Rs.
11 wp 3229.23
2,02,95,479/-. The petitioner siphoned huge amount which was
revealed in the enquiry by the competent authority and the
action was also proposed for the recovery of the same. The
petitioner is not eligible to retain the schools.
(iv) There was already direction issued against the petitioner
vide letter dated 27.07.2017 passed by the respondent No.
3/Commissioner for recovery of the huge amount of Rs.
2,02,95479/-. The activity of the petitioner was detrimental.
Therefore, on 27.09.2018 the report was submitted by the
respondent No. 3/Commissioner for taking action against the
petitioner and recommending the restoration of the schools to the
respondent No. 7. This is rightly confirmed by the impugned
order.
(v) The transferring of the schools to the petitioner in the
interregnum period is criticized by the High Court in its
judgment dated 09.01.2014 in W. P. No. 5618 of 2013.
(vi) The initial transfer of the schools to the petitioner was
without following due procedure of law and the same is rightly
rectified by the impugned order.
(vii) The communications dated 07.09.2018 and 27.09.2018 have
not been quashed.
(viii) The Hon'ble Minister is justified in confirming the order
dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Minister restoring schools from
12 wp 3229.23
the petitioner to the respondent No. 7.
(ix) The respondent No. 7 has applied for the registration, but
because of the orders of the status quo no further decision has
been taken. The respondent No. 7 is actually running the schools
from 01.07.2022, which is reflected in the report dated
26.07.2022.
(x) The provisions of the Maharashtra Educational
Institutions (Transfer of Management) Act, 1971 are invoked for
transferring the schools. As per Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act, the restoration of the schools is justified and has
sanctity of law.
(xi) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the matter of Kamala Prasad Khetan Vs. The Union of India
reported in AIR 1957 SC 676 and judgment dated 08.09.2021 in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1374 of 2020 rendered by the Supreme
Court in the matter of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and
others.
12. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has made following submissions.
a. The transfer of the special schools is regulated by the G. R.
dated 15.02.2019. There is prohibition stipulated in Clause 1(3)
for restoring the schools. But considering special circumstances
the order of restoration is passed.
13 wp 3229.23
b. The Disability Act is not applicable because it does not deal
with the transfer of the schools. Clause No. 83 of the provisions
of the Handicap School Code is relevant and therefore the G. R.
dated 15.03.2019 is applicable.
c. The Government Resolutions dated 19.07.2003 and
04.12.2003 are superseded by the G. R. dated 15.02.2019.
d. The Hon'ble Minister has power to transfer schools in view
of conditions stipulated in G. R. dated 05.07.2013.
e. Though the respondent No. 3/Commissioner has given
report stating that there was no siphoning of amount but it was
only irregularity regarding the arrears from 01.04.2011 to
01.11.2013 was not conclusive and cannot enure to the benefit of
the petitioner.
f. The petitioner committed fraud and siphoned amount of
Rs. 2,02,95,479/- by misrepresenting the respondent authorities
and, therefore, it is not eligible to retain the schools. The Hon'ble
Minister is justified in passing the impugned order.
13. We have considering the rival submissions advanced by the
litigating parties across the bar. We have also referred to
various provisions of the Act.
14. Disability Act provides for the registration of the
institution for the persons with disabilities under Chapter IX.
14 wp 3229.23
Section 49 of the Disability Act prescribes the competent
authority. According to the petitioner the Deputy Commissioner
is the competent authority as per the Government Resolution
dated 27.01.2014. Section 52 of the Disability Act is in respect of
the revocation of the registration and Section 53 provides for
remedy of appeal.
15. By the impugned order the registration of the petitioner
has not been cancelled/revoked. The petitioner was entrusted
schools from 05.07.2013. Thereafter, the registration of schools
has been renewed, which is to expire on 31.03.2024. The renewal
orders are placed on record by the petitioner at page No. 120 to
122. The revocation of the registration has not been ordered,
either in earlier order of the Hon'ble Minister dated 28.06.2022
or the impugned order dated 10.03.2023. The impugned order
pertains to simplicitor transfer of the schools. Transfer or
shifting of special schools does not come within the purview of
Disability Act. The provisions in Chapter IX are not attracted.
Therefore the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent authority has no jurisdiction for
revocation of the registration has no merit.
16. The present matter pertains to the transfer and restoration
of the schools. The learned Addl. G. P. has rightly pointed out
that the Disability Act is silent so far as transfer of the special
schools is concerned. It only deals with the registration and its
revocation under Chapter IX. Handicap School Code has been
promulgated by G. R. dated 18.07.2018. This Code of 2018
15 wp 3229.23
provides for transfer and shifting, by Clause No. 83. The Clause
No. 83 has already been referred to above and shows that G. R.
dated 16.09.2017 and the subsequent revised policies would
regulate the transfer and shifting.
17. The Government Resolution dated 15.02.2019 has been
placed on record at page No. 277. There is reference at Sr. No.
01 to the earlier Government Resolutions dated 19.07.2003 and
04.12.2003. These resolutions have been superseded by G. R.
dated 15.02.2019 and a modality is stipulated for transferring
and shifting of the special schools in its four clauses. The
relevant part is clause 01, Sub Clause (03) is as follows :
¼...½ O;oLFkkiukP;k pqdheqGs th viaxkaph "kkGk@deZ"kkGk can
iMyh vkgs vFkok ekU;rk jn~n >kysyh vkgs] vFkok uksan.kh
izek.ki= jn~n >kysys vkgs] v"kk viaxkaP;k fo"ks'k "kkGk@deZ"kkGk
R;kp laLFksl gLrkarfjr dj.;kr ;s.kkj ukghr- lnj fo|kFkhZ
yxrP;k viaxkaP;k fo"ks'k "kkGk@deZ"kkGsr oxZ dj.;kr ;srhy o
R;k laLFkspk lekos"k dkG;k ;knhr (Black List) dj.;kr ;sbZy-
18. There is a prohibition for restoration or re-transfer of the
schools to the original management due to whose defaults the
school was required to be closed down and the registration was
cancelled. This prohibition is an impediment for restoring the
schools to the respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 was
allotted three schools in the year 1995. Thereafter, the
respondent No. 7 committed the illegalities by shifting the
schools. The activities were found to be detrimental to the
interest of the students. The directions were issued to the
16 wp 3229.23
respondent No. 7 to close down the schools.
19. It is useful to refer to the judgment and order dated
10.10.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 6092 of 2012, which was
filed by the office bearer of the petitioner. By the order which is
at page No. 53, the respondent No. 7 was restrained from
running the schools at the transferred place at Udgir and the
schools were directed to be closed down. Further directions were
issued to the State Government to make arrangements to entrust
the schools to the institution willing to run the schools at Aurad.
This judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court, but special
leave petition was dismissed on 19.10.2012.
20. Thus the respondent No. 7 is a defaulting management.
Due to its defaults the action was required to be taken against it
for shifting the schools. High Court and the Supreme Court
decided against the respondent No. 7. Under these
circumstances, in view of Clause No. 1, sub Clause 3 of the G. R.
dated 15.02.2019, it is impermissible to restore the schools to the
respondent No. 7. Despite that, by the impugned order the
direction is issued to restore the school to the respondent No. 7
only on the ground of preference. This is against own policy of
the respondent No. 1.
21. The reason assigned in para No. 7 of the impugned order
that it would not be possible to appoint administrator or entrust
the schools to any third party institution does not stand to
reasons. We find it to be absolutely arbitrary and high handed.
17 wp 3229.23
The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this
regard are well founded. Pertinently, the learned Addl. G. P. has
also fairly made submissions in this regard. Therefore, the
restoration of the schools to the petitioner is unsustainable.
22. We have noticed that the allegations are made against the
petitioner in respect of siphoning of funds of Rs. 2,02,95,479/-
towards arrears of salary from 01.04.2011 to 01.11.2013. On
27.07.2017 a letter was issued by the respondent No.
3/Commissioner directing recovery of the amount in question.
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Minister passed order on 06.04.2018
reiterating the action of recovery. On 27.09.2018 the
Commissioner also forwarded the report to propose recovery of
50% from the employees and 50% from the petitioner. By
common judgment and order dated 17.10.2019 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.
6628 of 2019, the above orders are quashed and set aside. A
decision afresh was directed to be taken after extending
opportunity of hearing.
23. During the course of enquiry wherein impugned order was
passed no decision was placed on record to point out that after
the orders of High Court referred to above, the recovery has been
proposed and implemented. In above context the finding is
recorded in para No. 5(3) of the impugned order. Therefore, the
submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 that
the petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation and siphoned huge
amount of Rs. 2 crores cannot be countenanced. The respondent
18 wp 3229.23
No. 7 has not challenged this particular finding recorded in
favour of the petitioner.
24. On the contrary, the report of the respondent No.
3/Commissioner which was produced before the Hon'ble Minister
in the earlier round mentions that the salary grant was
disbursed to the petitioner for 01.04.2011 to 01.11.2013 and it
was credited to the accounts of the employees and this was not
the matter of any misappropriation but was merely an
irregularity. This particular part of the report is referred to in
the order dated 07.11.2022, passed by the Hon'ble Minister
which is on record at page No. 291.
25. In paragraph No. 5(4) of the impugned order it is recorded
that no reply was filed on record by the respondent No.
3/Commissioner to deal with allegations against the petitioner
for not accommodating the previous employees of the schools and
illegally recruiting the new employees. The leaned counsels
appearing for the litigating parties have not made any
submissions in this regard. This finding also goes unchallenged.
Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner have not been
proved. It is further recorded in para No. 5(5) that the
respondent No. 7 was not willing to run the school at Aurad
Shahajani. Thereafter para No. 6 refers to renewal of licence up
to 31.03.2024 in favour of the petitioner.
26. The findings recorded in paragraph No. 5(3) to 5(6) starting
from page No. 325 are in favour of the petitioner. In the wake of
19 wp 3229.23
these findings the impugned order is self contradictory in
divesting the schools from petitioner and restoring them to
respondent No. 7. Only reason which is assigned in para No. 5(7)
for restoring the schools to respondent No. 7 is preference. We
have already recorded our disapproval for this, in paragraph No.
(19).
27. From the above scenario, it reveals that the petitioner has
registration of the schools concerned upto 31.03.2024 which has
not been cancelled. There is no objective satisfaction for holding
petitioner guilty of any fraud or siphoning the amount of Rs.
2,02,95,479/-. Under these circumstances, the impugned order
and directions are absolutely unsustainable being perverse and
arbitrary.
28. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment in the matter of Chandrika Jha Vs.State of
Bihar and Raghunath Rai Bareja and another Vs. Punjab
National Bank and others (supra). We do not find the law laid
down therein is applicable to the present case. We have already
recorded our finding against the petitioner for the submissions
that the Hon'ble Minister has no jurisdiction to pass the
impugned order.
29. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 has relied
upon the judgments in the matter of Kamala Prasad Khetan Vs.
The Union of India and judgment dated 08.09.2021 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 1374 of 2020 rendered by the Supreme Court
20 wp 3229.23
in the matter of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and others
(supra). Both these judgments pertain to General Clauses Act.
He has pressed into service Section 21 of the General Clauses
Act. We are in disagreement with the submissions of the learned
counsel for the respondent No. 7. Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act is not attracted. Present case is covered by the
powers of transfer and shifting stipulated by the Handicap
School Code and Government Resolution dated 15.02.2019.
When there is direct provision empowering transfer, the recourse
to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to infer the power of
restoration is not warranted.
30. Though the petitioner has registration of two schools upto
31.03.2024, the periodical surveillance over their administration,
quality of education being imparted, facilities and following of
the service conditions of the employees is necessary. The
petitioner will have to be abided by the terms and conditions and
has to offer the schools for periodical inspections.
31. For the reasons stated above, we pass following order :
ORDER
A. The writ petition is allowed.
B. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2023
passed by the Hon'ble Minister is quashed and set aside.
C. The petitioner is permitted to run the schools in question
21 wp 3229.23
at Aurad Shahjani, Tq. Nilanga on the terms and
conditions stipulated by the competent authorities
previously and that would be imposed in future, subject to
the periodical inspections.
D. The Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
[SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
32. After pronouncement a request is made by the learned
advocate for the respondent No. 7 pointing out that by virtue of
the order dated 23.03.2023 interim relief was in operation and
the status quo was expected to be maintained. He requests that
the same arrangement may be allowed to be continued for a
reasonable time to enable the respondent No. 7 to approach the
Supreme Court.
33. Irrespective of the scope and effect of the interim relief,
there cannot be a dispute that indeed there was an interim relief
by virtue of the order dated 23.03.2023. If the scenario is allowed
to be changed pursuant to the order we are passing that could
complicate the fact situation.
34. Operation of the present order shall stand stayed for two
weeks from today.
[SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
bsb/Dec. 23
Signed by: Shri B. S. Bodke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/12/2023 11:05:50
