1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2011 (Suvidha Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and another .v. The State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri G.R. Sadar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri V.D. Bhople, Advocate for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 01ST AUGUST, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioners seek a cancellation of the transfer of the school of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 by the respondent No.2 to village Vastapur. It is necessary to note that though the school of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 was permitted to be transferred by the respondent No.2 on 31.03.2005 and the petitioner had challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 3984 of 2005 and this Court had directed the State Government to decide the representation of the petitioner in that regard, the petitioners had slept over for more than six years before approaching this Court, though the respondent No.2 has not decided the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner should have approached this Court at the earliest i.e. within a reasonable time in case the respondent- State has not decided the representation within the reasonable time in terms of the order dated 02nd September, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 3985 of 2005. Hence, as far as the first relief is concerned in regard to the cancellation of the transfer order of the school dated 31.03.2005, the petition suffers from laches and is liable to be dismissed. As regards the second prayer, by which the petitioners seek a declaration that the reports dated 19.03.2009 and 07.01.2010 2 made by the respondent No.5 are arbitrary and illegal, the petition appears to be premature. The petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.6 and 7 had sought permission to start 5th standard classes in their schools and the respondent-State has not granted permission either to the petitioner or the respondent Nos.6 and 7. The petitioners cannot challenge the reports of the respondent No.5 dated 19.03.2009 and 07.01.2010 though the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are not granted any permission to run the school and the petitioners’ application for opening the 5th standard classes is also not rejected. Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.