1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5148 of 2008 [Changdeo Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha Vs. State of Mah. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Ramesh Darda, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Doifode, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Adv., for respondent no.3. ------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 5th October, 2009. 1. Heard finally. 2. We find that there was a negative recommendation in favour of respondent no.3 earlier and hence the school could not have been sanctioned to it. It came to be sanctioned and a Writ Petition vide No. 3715 of 2008 was filed before this Court by present petitioners. On 2 10 th September, 2008, this Court directed State Govt., to consider petitioners grievance and to pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, impugned order dated 10 th November, 2008 has been passed and grant of school to respondent no.3 has been maintained. 3. In this background, Adv. Darda contends that order dated 10 th November, 2008 erroneously mentions that there were favourable recommendations in favour of respondent no.3. He further states that the District-level Committee and State-level Committee, as constituted in pursuance of orders of this High Court, are the only competent authorities to make any recommendations and there is no change in said recommendation. He points out that before this Court, an attempt is being made to justify order dated 10 th November, 2008 by pointing out the consideration of students strength by Distt.-level Committee and State- level Committee allegedly on 2 nd August, 2008. According to him, there was no such consideration on 2 nd August, 2008 and there was no such Committee constituted in accordance with law for said purpose. He contends that the consideration is allegedly undertaken in pursuance of letter of State Govt., dated 30 th July, 2008, and according to him, that letter also is either tampered or fabricated. In these circumstances, as Govt. itself could not have issued such letter dated 30 th July, 2008, 3 according to him, entire exercise undertaken in pursuance thereof culminating in grant of permission to respondent no.3, as alleged, is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Adv. Mr. Deshpande for respondent no.3 and learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2, however, support the order dated 10 th November, 2008. They contend that earlier consideration by Distt.-level Committee or State-level Committee was not in the background of declaration of results of Xth Standard examination in May-June, 2008 and hence the re- consideration was felt necessary and that re- consideration has been undertaken on 2 nd August, 2008 after said declaration. According to Adv. Mr. Deshpande, there is fifteen per cent increase in number of students. Learned AGP states that a communication dated 30 th July, 2008 was received by the Director of Education and because of that communication, the availability of students was re-examined by Distt.-level Committee and State-level Committee on 2 nd August, 2008. He states that after such re-examination, the Committees submitted favourable recommendation and hence school came to be granted to respondent no.3. He contends that in view of this, order dated 10 th November, 2008 is just and proper. 5. Original records of respondents are 4 produced before us by respondent no.2-Education Officer. We have perused those records and we find that by same number, different letters have been forwarded on 30 th July, 2008 by State of Maharashtra to Director of Education, Pune, in relation to Buldana district and also Yavatmal district. How different letters could have been forwarded by same number cannot be understood. The said authority at Pune thereafter has to forward the letters to Deputy Director of Education at Amravati and thereafter the meeting of State-level Committee or Distt.-level Committee, if any, could have been held. All these details and dates are not available on records shown to us. The order dated 10 th November, 2008 does not mention these developments. It is apparent that if view taken by earlier Distt.-level Committee or State-level Committee was being changed or modified, in order dated 10 th November, 2008, reference to all these events was essential. 6. Adv. Mr. Darda is relying upon certain information received by him under the Right to Information Act, to contend that nothing has transpired on 2 nd August, 2008; but all these aspects raise serious disputed questions. The respondent no.3 has already commenced school in 2008 itself. 7. In these circumstances, we find it proper to direct the respondent no.1 to re- 5 consider the entire issue in the light of observations made by us above after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and also respondent no.3. We also find it necessary to seal the records of respondents produced by respondent no.2 before us for our perusal. Accordingly, those records are directed to be sealed and transmitted to the Office of Deputy Secretary by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due, or by appropriate mode, showing acknowledgment of its receipt by said officer, at the cost of petitioners. Registry to seal the records and arrange for its further transmission at the cost of petitioner. 8. In view of the re-consideration, impugned order dated 10 th November, 2008 is quashed and set aside. Matter is restored back to the file of Deputy Secretary, State of Maharashtra, i.e., respondent no.1, for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before said authority on 9 th November, 2009, and to abide by its further directions in the matter. Registry to arrange for transmission of sealed records to said authority in the meanwhile. Said authority shall open the sealed records in presence of both the parties or their representatives on 9 th November, 2009. 9. By way of abundant precaution, it is made clear that school of respondent no.3, which 6 is continuing as per orders of this Court, shall continue in terms of said orders till appropriate orders in this respect are passed by the Deputy Secretary. Judge Judge |Hedau|