1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4654 OF 2009 Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal at Deotala, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, through its President Shri.Bhaurao S/o. Anandrao Chavan, Age-5 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o.Deotala, Taluka Ausa, District : Latur PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Commissioner, Women and Child Development Maharashtra State, Pune-1 3. The District Women and Child Development Officer, Latur, District Latur. 4. The District Women and Child Development Officer, Latur District Latur. RESPONDENTS Mr.N.P.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondents 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 18/08/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a necessary writ directing the respondents to correct the order dated 01/11/2008 and 10/11/2008 in which the petitioner Trust is shown to have been sanctioned the Balak Ashram School at Osmanabad instead of at District Latur. 3. It appears that the petitioner trust had submitted proposals for Balak Ashram School at Deotala, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, and at Sattardharwadi, Taluka Ausa, District Latur in the name of Sudarshan Balak Ashram. The aforesaid proposals as pointed out by us pertains to starting of the Balak Ashram Schools at District Latur. The proposals came to be scrutinized and favourably recommended to the respondents for grant of necessary permission. The State Government by its order dated 01/11/2008 and 10/11/2008 granted permission in favour of the petitioner for starting two Balak Ashram Schools at Osmanabad and not at the places for which the proposals 3 had been submitted by the petitioner. As pointed out by us about the proposals of the petitioner have been duly scrutinized and had been favourably re-commended for grant of permission for starting Balak Ashram Schools at District Latur and not at District Osmanabad. To the utter surprise of petitioner, the petitioner received permission for starting Balak Ashram School at Osmanabad. It appears that the petitioner was served to the impugned communication informing that despite grant of permission to the petitioner, no infrastructural facilities were available at Osmanabad, and therefore the petitioner by communication dated 19/06/2009 was called upon to explain within 7 days as to why the final permission granted by the Government should not be withdrawn. The petitioner being left with no other alternative has filed this petition. 4. Undisputedly, the proposals submitted by the petitioner was for starting of Balak Ashram Schools at District Latur and not at Osmanabad. The proposals of the petitioner had been duly scrutinized by the authorities and the authorities had re-commended the grant of permission to the petitioner for Balak Ashram School at District Latur and not at Osmanabad. In the light of that therefore according to us the grant of permission to the petitioner for starting Balak Ashram School at Osmanabad appears to be an inadvertent mistake which the respondent ought to have corrected when brought to their notice. However since the respondents have not done so, we constrain to allow this petition and direct the respondents to re- examine the proposal of the petitioner for starting of the Balak Ashram School at Latur and in the light of the fact that we are 4 remitting the matter back to the respondents for a decision afresh. The order impugned in the present petition dated 19/06/2009 is hereby quash and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to pass orders in accordance with Law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/wp4654-09