1 wp3961.09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3961 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, & Shri M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 27st June, 2011 Shri S. V. Warad, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Resp. t Nos. 3 to 5. --------- 1. The petitioner has approached this court, con tending that, permission to Respondent No.1 to convert its school for girls to a -co-educational school, has adversely affected affected the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner runs a co- educational school. According to the petitioner, the strength of its school would be adversely affected, if a new school is opened, or the old school for girls is converted into a co-educational school. 2 wp3961.09 2. The State has filed an affidavit, indicating that the permission has been granted to Respondent No. 1 to convert the girls' school into a co-educational school, by order dated 20.5.2009, and on an enquiry made, the State has found that the petitioner's co- educational school would not be affected adversely. In fact, the State has annexed a table to its affidavit, indicating the strength of the respective schools. 3. In our opinion, when it is now well settled by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court that more than one school can exist within a radius of five kilometers, the petitioner cannot question the decision taken by the Government to allow Respondent No.1 to convert its girls school into co- educational school. The students must have choice of the best school available for them to partake the education. 3 wp3961.09 4. Mr. Warad, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Memorial Education Society vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (1) Mh.L. J. 873, wherein the Division Bench has held that the school which was likely to be prejudiced and affected, had a right to be heard. The facts in that case were different from the facts in the present case, as in the case cited, the issue was regarding shifting of college from one place to another and the party which would be prejudicially affected by the decision of the Govt. to shift the college, had a right to be heard. In the present case, there is a policy decision of the Govt. to permit a boys school, or a girls' school, to be converted into a co-educational school. 4 wp3961.09 5. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the present petition, in our extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 6. Petition stands rejected. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp3961.09