Bombay High Court
Sharada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Thr ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 5 January, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M.Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:1790-DB
1 110-WP-12343-2022 .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12343 OF 2022
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD
Sharada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
PATIL
Thr Its President and Ors. ...Petitioners
Digitally signed
by
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD PATIL
Versus
Date:
2024.01.15
18:51:29
+0530
The State Of Maharashtra and Ors ...Respondents
.......
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.
Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl. G.P a/w Mr. K.S. Thorat, AGP for Respon-
dent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Suresh Pakale, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Nilesh Desai i/b Mr. S.M.
Katkar for Respondent No. 6.
.......
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 5 JANUARY 2024
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Though the
learned counsel for the parties has sought to advance various
contentions on merits of the matter including relying on the order
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11273 of 2023 and others,
the issue before us is the grievance brought before us by the
Petitioner- Institution along with its 13 employees regarding hearing
of notice dated 3 October 2022. By the said notice, Deputy Director
of Education called the Petitioner-Institution for hearing on 13
Y.S.Patil
2 110-WP-12343-2022 .doc
October 2022 regarding approval granted to it referring to the
complaints made for cancellation of transfer and individuals
approvals.
2. The main ground on which Petitioners seek to question
the proceedings initiated by Deputy Director of Education is based
on the Government Resolution dated 10 June 2022 and orders
passed by this Court. The Government Resolution dated 10 June
2022 has taken review of the earlier resolutions and has streamlined
the process regarding grant of approval as well as including the
details in the Shalarth portal. In clause 3.2 of the Resolution, it is
stated that if personal approval are granted prior to 6 February 2012,
then as per the Government Resolution dated 23 August 2017, the
same can be set aside and recalled or cancelled only on the grounds
of fraud, misrepresentation and suppression of facts. Meaning
thereby that such grounds must exist and general review is not
permissible in such cases.
3. In the Judgment and order dated 30 March 2021 in Writ
Petition No. 1380 of 2019 alongwith other Petitions, identical issue
arose as to grounds of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of
facts for cancellation of the approval granted. In paragraph no. 9 of
the said decision following observations were made.
"Therefore, when the impugned orders came to be
passed, the aspect of whether there was any fraud or
misrepresentation or suppression was to be dealt
Y.S.Patil
3 110-WP-12343-2022 .doc
with. The impugned orders based on a show cause
proceed only on the basis that Rule 9(8) has not been
followed, and with no allegation of any fraud,
suppression,misrepresentation or collusion.
Therefore, since neither the show- cause-notice nor
the impugned order is based on fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression, such impugned
orders would be contrary to the order passed on 16
August 2017. Considering the language of the
Government Resolution dated 23 August 2017
whereby show-cause-notice and opportunity of
hearing are contemplated, a reasoned order is to be
passed first putting the party to the notice of the
fraud or misrepresentation or suppression and then
to deal with the same in the impugned order. Since
this has not been done and, in view of the order
passed on 16 August 2017 in Petitioners' own case,
the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set
aside."
4. In the present case, grievance of the Petitioners is that
there is nothing specified in the show cause notice regarding fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression of material facts without which
Petitioners cannot effectively deal with show cause notice. It is
submitted that on such limited grounds only review of approval
already granted is permissible and the implications being serious
resulting in cancellation of approval already granted, it follows that
opportunity needs to be given to deal with allegations. Show cause
notice is based on a complaint made by Respondent No. 6. It is
admitted that copy of the complaint is also not seen annexed
alongwith the show cause notice.
Y.S.Patil
4 110-WP-12343-2022 .doc
5. By interim order passed by this Court on 17 October
2022, proceedings before the Deputy Director of Education have
not been stalled, but final decision is directed not to be taken. This
order is continued till date.
6. According to us, it would be a part of principle of natural
justice that if the Respondents/ authorities are proceeding to take
action against Petitioners on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation
etc., they have to be given an opportunity to deal with the same by
indicating so, either in the show cause notice or at least annexing the
copy of complaint with the show cause notice. Since neither has
been done, we direct Deputy Director of Education to issue a
supplementary show cause notice in addition to one already sent,
setting out proposed grounds which according to the Deputy
Director amount to fraud, misrepresentation, collusion etc. on the
part of the Petitioners.
7. Learned AGP states that such additional show cause
notice would be sent to the Petitioners within a period of 3 weeks
from today. After the notice is so served, let the proceedings before
Deputy Director of Education continue. Deputy Director will
permit the Petitioners to respond to the additional show cause notice
by setting out time table for conclusion of the inquiry.
8. We make it clear that we have passed this order to direct
the authorities to comply with the principles of natural justice and
Y.S.Patil
5 110-WP-12343-2022 .doc
not on merits of the case, which the Deputy Director will consider, in
accordance with law.
9. Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
Y.S.Patil
