{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6103 OF 2009 Azad Sevabhavi Sanstha, Kerul Taluka-Ashti, Dist-Beed through its President Shaikh Jafar Chand s/o Shaikh Chand Shahabuddin R/o Kerul, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Ministry of School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Addl. Secretary, State of Maharashtra Ministry of School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 3. The Director of Education Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Directorate Maharashtra State Pune 4. The Dy. Director of Education Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 5. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Beed RESPONDENTS {2} ....... Mr.C.V.Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent / State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 14th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to an order dated 17th August 2009 passed by the respondents transferring the school of the petitioner from Aranvihira to Pimpalner. 3. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus - The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act and Bombay Public Trust Act 1950. Initially, respondents had granted permission and approval to the petitioner for starting and running a school from 2000-01 onwards. The petitioner, upon being granted the aforesaid {3} permission, started the school at the place mentioned in the sanction order, on the terms and conditions laid down by the respondents, in the order of sanction. It appears that on account of certain difficulties, which the society faced, the petitioner trust decided to transfer its school and accordingly submitted a proposal to the respondents for granting permission for transferring the Aranvihira school in the year 2007-08. Though the proposal was pending, no orders came to be passed on the request of the petitioner for transfer of the said school. The petitioner society, it appears, overcame its difficulties and informed the respondents that the society is withdrawing its request for transfer of the Aranvihira school. The respondents, despite the submission of the petitioner withdrawing the earlier request, issued the impugned order dated 17.08.2009 transferring the school of the petitioner. 4. In the light of the relief, which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at the stage of admission. 5. The impugned order in the present petition, according to us, is unsustainable in law. The petitioner had initially submitted an application requesting for transfer of its Aranvihira school. Despite pendecy of the aforesaid application no orders came to be passed by the respondents transferring the said school. The petitioner trust, thereafter, overcame its administrative difficulties and withdrew the request made by it earlier. Despite {4} withdrawal of the request, respondents have passed the impugned order. According to us, since the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier request, the aforesaid order of transfer is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6103-09