1 W.P.No.9119/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.9110 OF 2011. Dr.Zakir Hussain Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, New Nanded, through its Joint Secretary, Yousuf Khan Chandkhan Pathan, Age 35 years, Occ.Business, R/o Workshop Road, Nanded, Dist.Nanded. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Education, Pune. 3. Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur. 4. The Education Committee, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, through its Secretary i.e. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 5. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ... Respondents. 2 W.P.No.9119/11 ... Mr.N.B.Khandare, advocate for the petitioner Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.S.G.Sangle, advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.12.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The recognition of Dr.Zakir Hussain Primary School, Nanded, came to be cancelled. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Divisional Deputy Director Education, Latur. The said appeal is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. Mr.Khandare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representative of the 3 W.P.No.9119/11 petitioner could not remain present before the Divisional Deputy Director, Latur, as the notice of the hearing was received by the petitioner after the date was over. Moreover, on merits also the factual matrix has not been properly considered. The learned counsel contends that the School runs in two shifts and only the students of one shift were considered. 5. Mr.Sangle, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that all the record which is sought to be placed before this Court has not been placed before the Divisional Deputy Director, Latur. The petitioner was given ample opportunity but still, remained absent. No fault can be found in the order passed by the authority. 6. Perusal of the order, it is manifest that the authority has decided the appeal in absence of the petitioner. The record which is sought to be placed before this Court was not before the authority. I am not entering into the reasons for the absence of the petitioner before 4 W.P.No.9119/11 the appellate authority. Suffice it to observe that all the facts were not before the authority while deciding the appeal. I am inclined to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to represent its case before the appellate authority. 7. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 10.10.2011, passed by the Respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside. The parties shall appear before the Respondent No.3 on 22.12.2011. The Respondent No.3 shall decide the said appeal afresh after giving opportunity to the parties as expeditiously as possible. 8. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp911011 5 W.P.No.9119/11