1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2122 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION No.2208 OF 2010 (Shahbabu Education So. .vs. State and Ors.) ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 07, 2011. Heard Mr.A.A.Naik, Adv for petitioner and Mrs.Bharti Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 4. The instant Civil Application No.2122 of 2011 is filed by the petitioner/applicant for final disposal as the issue involved in the petition is covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported at 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 130, Dnyanganga Krida Arogya VA Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.. Mr.A.A.Naik, Adv. for the petitioner points out that the District Selection Committee had recommended the proposal of petitioner for grant of Urdu Medium Secondary School and from perusal of the impugned order served upon the petitioner, it appears that there was negative 2 recommendation of State Selection Committee. He states that though there are other secondary schools in the vicinity, need existed and therefore, the District Selection Committee had recommended the proposal of petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner is not aware of any complaint, but if there are such complaints or then negative recommendation of State Selection Committee, the petitioner needed to be given an opportunity. He relies upon the above mentioned judgment to urge that this Court has found it necessary that, in such circumstances, the State Government must approach the controversy independently and must record its own reasons for taking appropriate view. He argues that from the impugned communication dt.4.3.2010, it is apparent that there is no such independent application of mind by the State Government. The learned Additional Government Pleader points out that the petitioner had sought permission in the year 2008-09 and in view of impossibility to grant such permission, now that proposal has lapsed. In the alternative, it is urged that the reasons noted by the State Government are relevant and hence, it cannot be said that there is non-application of mind. It is, therefore, argued that this Court should not, in such circumstances, 3 interfere in the matter. After hearing the respective Counsel and after perusal of judgment, on which reliance is being placed, we find that necessity of recording reasons in such circumstances is emphasized by this Court in paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the said judgment. The impugned order served upon the petitioner is only a communication forwarded by the Education Officer. It is not an order passed by the State Government. Along with that communication, a chart, in which name of petitioner appears along with few other institutions, is annexed. The chart shows a positive recommendation of District Selection Committee and then a Negative recommendation of the State Level Committee. Had the State Government accepted the proposal of petitioner, the only possible inference would have been that the State Government had accepted positive recommendation of the District Selection Committee and was not influenced by the negative recommendations of State Selection Committee. Here, as the Government has rejected the proposal, the only possible inference is that the State Government perhaps has accepted the negative recommendation of the State Selection Committee. This fact, therefore, clearly justifies emphasis being 4 laid by the earlier Division Bench on recording reasons independently. If there are subsequent developments, those developments can be looked into by the State Government while considering the proposal submitted by the petitioner. Merely because time has expired, the State Government cannot be permitted to contend that the proposal submitted by petitioner in accordance with law cannot now be considered. The State Government cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own lapse in the matter. Hence, without observing anything more on the issue, we restore the proposal submitted by the petitioner for the year 2008-09 back to file for its appropriate consideration in accordance with law by respondent no.1. The respondent no1 shall undertake such consideration as early as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from today. Respondent no.1 is free to accord opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of the controversy. The petition is, thus, partly allowed. No costs. In view of disposal of the petition, Civil Application No.2122 of 2011 is also disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE 5 jais