1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2240 OF 2010 Shri. Chatrapati Shivaji Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Vikas Sevabhavi Shikshan Sanstha, Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur, Through its Secretary Shri Babanrao s/o Rambhaji Ghodke, Age : 38 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education Maharashtra State, Pune - 1 3. The Dy. Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur Dist. Latur 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.A. Dhengale, Advocate holding for Mr T.J. Poul for the petitioner; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2241 OF 2010 2 Dnyanganga Sevabhavi Sanstha, Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur Through its Secretary Shri Rajendra s/o Shankarrao Sonake, Age : 34 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education Maharashtra State, Pune - 1 3. The Dy. Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur Dist. Latur 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.A. Dhengale, Advocate holding for Mr T.J. Poul for the petitioner; Mr S. V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2242 OF 2010 Dnyanganga Sevabhavi Sanstha, Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur Through its Secretary Shri Rajendra s/o Shankarrao Sonake, Age : 34 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER 3 VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education Maharashtra State, Pune - 1 3. The Dy. Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur Dist. Latur 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.A. Dhengale, Advocate holding for Mr T.J. Poul for the petitioner; Mr S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2243 OF 2010 Sadnath Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Mandal, Nitoor, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur Through its Secretary Shri Kalidas s/o Vasantrao Patil, Age : 35 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nitoor, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 4 2. The Director of Education Maharashtra State, Pune - 1 3. The Dy. Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur Dist. Latur 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.A. Dhengale, Advocate holding for Mr T.J. Poul for the petitioner; Mr K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2247 OF 2010 Dnyanganga Sevabhavi Sanstha, Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur Through its Secretary Shri Rajendra s/o Shankarrao Sonake, Age : 34 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education Maharashtra State, Pune - 1 3. The Dy. Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur Dist. Latur 5 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.A. Dhengale, Advocate holding for Mr T.J. Poul for the petitioner; Mr S. V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2248 OF 2010 Vastad Lahuji Salve Navyuvak Vyam Shala and Krida Mandal Wadi Kasar Shirsi Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur Through its Secretary Shri Rajendra s/o Shankarrao Sonake, Age : 34 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education Maharashtra State, Pune - 1 3. The Dy. Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur Dist. Latur 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS 6 Mr B.A. Dhengale, Advocate holding for Mr T.J. Poul for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2250 OF 2010 Rajmata Jijau Bahu-uddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Lakkad Javalga, Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur Through its Secretary Shri Dnyanoba s/o Nagnathrao Bhosale, Age : 28 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Lakkad Javalga, Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education Maharashtra State, Pune - 1 3. The Dy. Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur Dist. Latur 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.A. Dhengale, Advocate holding for Mr T.J. Poul for the petitioner; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondents 7 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2251 OF 2010 Dnyanganga Sevabhavi Sanstha, Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur Through its Secretary Shri Rajendra s/o Shankarrao Sonake, Age : 34 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education Maharashtra State, Pune - 1 3. The Dy. Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur Dist. Latur 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.A. Dhengale, Advocate holding for Mr T.J. Poul for the petitioner; Mr S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 18th March, 2010 8 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at this stage. Since all the petitions claim common relief i.e. of directing respondents for deciding the proposals submitted by the petitioners therein, all these petitions can be decided by this common judgment. 2. Pursuant to the policy which was declared earlier the petitioners submitted an application somewhere in May, 2008 for opening new primary school as per the master plan and as per the advertisement which had been published in the daily Lokmat dated 2.5.2008. The petitioners in all these petitions claim to have submitted the proposal for opening of a new school in Marathi medium. Despite the passage of time the petitioners have not been informed anything regarding the fate of their proposals. Though the petitioners pray for directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioners for opening of new schools, according to us such a relief would be wholly inappropriate in the face of the fact that the proposals have not been decided. According to us, the interest of justice would be sub served by directing the respondents to decide the proposal 9 submitted by each of the petitioners, if pending, in accordance with law within a particular time. 3. We accordingly allow these petitions and direct the respondents to decide the proposals submitted by the petitioners, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp2240.10 10 WRIT PETITION NOS. 2240/2010, 2241/2010, 2242/2010, 2243/2010, 2247/2010, 2248/2010, 2250/2010 & 2251/2010. Date of decision : 18th March, 2010 For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [ Anant Joshi ] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge