Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak ... vs State Of Maharashra, Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1147 Bom

WP 7751-19                                     1                       Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 7751/2019

1.   Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha,
     Through its President Pandurang Tukaramji Thakre,
     Aged about 64 years.

2.   Jijamata Convent School, Through its Headmaster
     Sanjay Ajabrao Chavhan, Aged about 47 years.

Both R/o At Post Ansing, Tq. and Dist. Washim.                    PETITIONERS

                                .....VERSUS.....

1.   State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal
     Secretary, The Revenue and Forest Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2.   Sub Divisional Officer, Washim,
     Tq. & Dist. Washim.

3.   The Collector, Washim, Tq. & Dist. Washim.

4.   The Tahsildar, Washim, Tq. & Dist. Washim.

5.   Education Officer, Washim,
     Tq. & Dist. Washim.                                        RESPONDENTS

Shri R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate with A.P. Thakre, counsel for the petitioners.
 Ms N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 4.
            Shri Amol Deshpande, counsel for the respondent no.5.

CORAM :      A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : JANUARY 20, 2023
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : FEBRUARY 03, 2023.
JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

WP 7751-19 2 Judgment

2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the communication

dated 29.07.2019 that has been issued by the Education Officer (Primary),

Zilla Parishad, Washim refusing to reimburse the tuition fees under

Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,

2009 (for short, 'the Act of 2009') to the school run by the petitioners.

3. The facts relevant for considering the challenge as raised by

the petitioners is that according to the petitioners it purchased

Government land admeasuring 0.81 HR land at Mouza Ansing, Taluka

and District Washim from Survey No.82/2 at its market price. Based on

the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 13.06.1990 by which the

market price of Survey No.82/2 came to be determined, the first

petitioner-Education Society purchased the said land at the market price

of Rs.18,010/-. The order of the Collector in that regard is dated

30.11.1992 and the first petitioner executed the possession receipt on

14.12.1992. Under the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009 it is

the case of the petitioners that it is entitled to receive reimbursement of

the tuition fees to the extent of 25% admissions made by it in the light of

the directions issued on 30.01.2019 by the School Education and Sports

Department. Such benefit of reimbursement is not admissible to those

schools who have received Government lands either at a discounted price

or free of cost. Since it is the case of the petitioners that they have paid WP 7751-19 3 Judgment

the market value of the said land they cannot be deprived of the benefit

of reimbursement as has been done by issuing communication dated

29.07.2019 by the first respondent. Being aggrieved, the said

communication is under challenge.

4. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners

referred to the manner in which the aforesaid 0.81 HR land was

purchased by the first petitioner. By following the procedure prescribed

by the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules,

1971 the Sub-Divisional Officer by his report dated 13.06.1990

determined the market price of 0.81 HR land at Rs.16,146/-. Based on its

report, it is submitted that the Collector issued an order of allotment of

the said land on 05.11.1992. In view of the Circular dated 01.07.1985

the market price of the said land was fixed at Rs.18,010/- and by paying

that amount the necessary documents conferring title on the first

petitioner - Education Society came to be executed. From the Academic

Year 2014-15 the school had granted 25% admissions without charging

any fees in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2009 and as

the land on which the school was being run was purchased by the Society

at its market price it was entitled to be reimbursed the said amount of

tuition fees as per Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009. Without considering

the manner in which the said land was purchased by the first petitioner -

WP 7751-19 4 Judgment

Education Society at its market price, the Education Officer (Primary) had

held the school not entitled to such reimbursement. Only by stating that

the school had received Government land such entitlement had been

turned down. It was thus submitted that on a proper consideration of the

relevant documents it was clear that the school was entitled to

reimbursement of the tuition fees under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009.

5. Shri Amol Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the fifth

respondent - Education Officer (Primary) supported the impugned

communication. According to him in the light of the policy of the State

Government as reflected in the communication dated 30.01.2019 the

schools receiving Government land at concessional rates or without

paying any revenue charges were not entitled to reimbursement of tuition

fees under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009. The documents on which

the first petitioner - Education Society was relying clearly indicated that

the land was received by it at a concessional rate and hence the Education

Officer (Primary) rightly held the school to be not entitled for such

reimbursement. The impugned communication therefore did not call for

any interference.

Ms N.P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent nos.1 to 4 supported the action taken by the fifth

respondent.

WP 7751-19 5 Judgment

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we

have perused the documents on record. The impugned communication

dated 29.07.2019 holds the school not entitled to reimbursement of 25%

tuition fees for the reason that the school was granted Government land.

Except this reason that the school was granted Government land, the

Education Officer (Primary) has not taken into consideration the true

purport of the instructions issued by the School Education and Sports

Department on 30.01.2019. Perusal of these instructions clearly indicates

that it is only if the school has been granted Government land at a

concessional rate or Government land is leased at a concessional lease

amount that such school would not be entitled to reimbursement of 25%

tuition fees. The instructions issued do not prima-facie indicate that an

institution is precluded from seeking reimbursement of tuition fees

because it has been allotted Government land. It is only when

Government land is allotted at a concessional rate that the school is

deprived of claiming reimbursement. The impugned communication thus

has been issued by the Education Officer (Primary) without adverting to

the vital aspect as to whether the school received the land at a

concessional rate or not. On this short ground the impugned

communication dated 29.07.2019 would be required to be quashed with

a further direction to the said Authority to re-consider the matter in the

light of the instructions dated 30.01.2019.

 WP 7751-19                                      6                        Judgment



7.             It   was   strenuously   urged       by   the   learned    Senior

Advocate for the petitioners that the documents on record and

especially the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 13.06.1990

clearly indicate that the market price of the land at the relevant

period was Rs.16,146/-. When the order of allotment was issued,

its market price was Rs.18,010/- that was duly paid by the

petitioners. The land was thus not purchased/allotted at any

concessional rate. It was thus submitted that on the basis of

aforesaid the petitioners be held entitled to reimbursement of 25% tuition

fees.

We however find that the Education Officer (Primary)

posed a wrong question to itself and proceeded to refuse to grant

reimbursement to the school only on the ground that the school

had received Government land. It would therefore be necessary

for the Education Officer (Primary) to re-consider the matter and

arrive at a conclusion as to whether 0.81 HR land was allotted to

the petitioner on 05.11.1992 at a concessional price or at its market

price. We have therefore not gone into that aspect of the matter

which is primarily required to be considered by the Education Officer

(Primary).

WP 7751-19 7 Judgment

8. Hence for aforesaid reasons the impugned communication

dated 29.07.2019 is set aside. The Education Officer (Primary) is

directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioners for reimbursement of

25% tuition fees after considering the Circulars dated 08.02.1983 and

01.07.1985 as well as the directions issued by the School Education and

Sports Department, Maharashtra State on 30.01.2019. To enable such

consideration the petitioners through their authorized representative shall

appear before the Education Officer (Primary) on 08.02.2023 and place

before him all relevant documents that they seek to rely upon in that

regard. The Education Officer (Primary) shall examine the said

documents and take a decision on such claim on its own merits within a

period of four weeks from that date.

9. The writ petition is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule

accordingly. No costs.

(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

APTE

Signed By: Digitally signed byROHIT DATTATRAYA APTE Signing Date:04.02.2023 15:44