wp5442.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5442 OF 2010 Al Hilal Minority Educational and Social Welfare Institution and another ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. V.R. Sonwalkar, advocate for respondent No.3 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 29TH JUNE, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The petitioner No.1 is an institution, which proposes to run petitioner No.2 as an Urdu medium primary school. The petitioner No. 1 had sought permission from the respondents to run the school in village Pimpri Manas, Tq. Sengaon, District Hingoli. While submitting the proposal, the petitioners had disclosed the dimensions of the class rooms in the proposed school. It has also disclosed all other information necessary for granting permission to run the school. wp5442.10 -2- Besides this, an undertaking was also furnished by the institution indicating that it is willing to run the school on a permanent no grant basis. 2 It appears that the District Level Committee has recommended that the petitioners should be permitted to run the school. However, the State Level Committee refused the permission. The order impugned, dated 25.2.2010, however, does not disclose whether the State Level Committee had in fact refused the permission. The State has filed an affidavit of the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad region. He has stated in para 3 as follows:- “3. It is submitted that, the State Level committee has observed that, there is less population, so also the institution has not shown enrollment (number of student). So also it is observed that, the facilities available are not sufficient. The actual measurements of the infrastructure facilities is not mentioned in the proposal, for both the reasons, the State Level Committee recommended the proposal not favourable.” 3 This affidavit shows a complete non application of mind on the part of the Deputy Director of Education. He has stated that the institution has not shown enrollment i.e. the number of students. We are afraid that we cannot appreciate this statement in the affidavit. The institution could not have enrolled any student when it is yet to be wp5442.10 -3- granted permission by the State to start its school. The statement that actual measurements of the infrastructure facilities was not mentioned in the proposal is also incorrect as the area of class rooms and the number of class rooms have been mentioned in the proposal. 4 It is obvious from the record that the respondents wanted to deny the petitioners’ permission to start school for no reason whatsoever. 5 We have heard counsel for the parties and in our opinion, the impugned order must be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.2.2010 is set aside. The respondents will consider the proposal submitted by the petitioners afresh, within eight weeks from today. 6 The petition is disposed of, accordingly. ( M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) rlj/