Shashank Dnyanoba Acharya And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 264 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shashank Dnyanoba Acharya And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 5 January, 2024

Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M.Sathaye

2024:BHC-AS:688-DB



                                                             1             98 WP-3988-22 =.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3988 OF 2022

                    Shashank Dnyanoba Acharya And Anr.              ...Petitioners
                               Versus
                    The State Of Maharashtra Through The            ...Respondents
                    Secretary, School Edu. Dept. And Ors.

 SNEHA                                            ****
 NITIN
 CHAVAN             Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w Vinayak
 Digitally signed
                    Kumbhar i/b A.N. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioners.
 by SNEHA
 NITIN CHAVAN
 Date: 2024.01.08
                    Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondents/State.
 18:18:14 +0530
                                                  ****

                                                       CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
                                                               M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 5 JANUARY 2024

P.C. :

. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is yet another matter where had any indication been given to the Petitioner/Educational Institute that the Respondent- Education Inspector was proposing to reject the approval on the ground stated in the impugned Order dated 07 December 2020, the Petitioners would have pointed out certain legal and factual position. Since this is not done, the adjudication of the Petitioners' case falls on this ground. Such course of action adopted by the Educational authority is taking substantial judicial time of this Court.

Sneha Chavan

2 98 WP-3988-22 =.doc

3. We, therefore, direct that the impugned order shall be considered as a prima facie opinion of the Education Inspector calling upon the Petitioner/Management to put forth their say. The proposal submitted by the Petitioners stands restored to the file of the Education Inspector.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that written response, annexing relevant Government Resolution, judicial pronouncement would be submitted to the Education Inspector within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. There upon the Education Inspector would deal with the written response of the Petitioners, also Judgments, if any, cited and pass a reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks thereafter subject to earlier time bound directions.

5. If the Education Officer does not communicate any further proposed ground for rejection within a period of 2 weeks from today, we will consider that no other ground exists and the only ground of rejection is stated in the impugned order. The Petitioners would wait for a period of 2 weeks as above and thereafter submit a representation.

6. Writ Petition is disposed of.

  (M.M.SATHAYE, J.)                         (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)




Sneha Chavan