(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1656 OF 1998 Sharada Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Gat Sakali, Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon, Through its President, Shri Vasant Ramji Mahajan. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Under Secretary, Maharashtra State, Shaley Shikshan Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Dy. Director of Education, Nashik. 3. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 4. Shivaji Mitra Mandal, Sakali, Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon, through its President. 5. Madhyamik Shala, Sirsad-Sakali, at Sakali, Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon, through its Headmaster. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. Suresh M. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate, holding for Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. By the present petition, the petitioner assails the permission granted to the respondent no.4, to open a Secondary School at village Sirsad Sakali (Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon). 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that the respondent no.4 was initially unauthorizedly running the school. As such, the petitioner filed Writ Petition, bearing No. 3180/1995, seeking directions against the present respondent, to close the unauthorized school. It is the case of the petitioner, that the present respondent no.4 had filed Writ Petition, bearing No. 431/1996, for including the said village in the master plan and to grant recognition to its school. The petitioner (3) contends that on 7th February 1996, this Court had directed the respondent no.4 to close down the unauthorized school and there were no directions given by this Court, to include the said village in the master plan. The petitioner further contended that as the orders of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 431/1996, were not followed, it had filed a Contempt Petition, bearing No. 220/1996, and the respondent no.4 was injuncted from running the school. 3. On or about 18-10-1997, permission is granted to the respondent no.4, to run the school from the academic year 1997-98. 4. Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, led much emphasis on the earlier litigation, as referred above, and stated that the respondent no.4 was running an unauthorized school and when the respondent no.4 was running an unauthorized school, he could not have been granted such a permission. He relied on Section 2 of the Secondary School Code and states that as per Section 2(i) of the Secondary School Code, an application for opening the school has to be made in the month of October of the preceding year and as per Sub-Section 2 of Section 5, without permission, no school is allowed to run. According to Mr. Kulkarni, all the provisions of the Secondary School Code are flouted and the permission has been illegally granted to the respondent no.4 to open the school. He also canvassed that in view of the letters given by the political leaders, the authorities have granted permission to the respondent no.4, without following any rules. (4) 5. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4, has brought to our notice that the earlier litigation referred to, by the petitioner, was in respect of another institution and the respondent no.4 was not a party to the earlier litigation. According to him, in the month of January 1997, advertisement was issued by the authorities. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had filed a proposal for opening of the new school. After following the due procedure, recommendation was made for grant of permission to respondent no.4 and thereafter, permission has been granted to the respondent no.4 to open and run the school. As such, according to him, the procedure has been validly followed. 6. Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, to substantiate his contention, that the provisions of the Secondary School Code have to be strictly complied with, has relied on following judgments : 1] Judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Late K.L. Deshmukh Shikshan Sanstha, Karkheda Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2000(1) Mh.L.J. 830). 2] Judgments of Division Bench of this Court, in the following cases :- i] Annaji Raut Shikshan Sanstha, Umri, and another Vs. Secretary, Department of Education and Employment, Bombay, and others (2001(4) Mh.L.J. 293). (5) ii] Ahilyadevi Vyayam Krida Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Khandala Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2004(3) Mh.L.J. 554). iii] Dnyanganga Krida Arogya Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2003(2) Mh.L.J. 130). iv] Ranojirao Shikshan Sanstha, Mhasave Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2005(4) Mh.L.J. 207). The proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgments are not disputed, but the same are with regard to the facts in those cases. The judgments of the Apex Court or this Court cannot be read as a Euclid Theorem. They have to be read in the context in which they have been delivered. 7. The facts in the present case are self-eloquent. When the advertisement itself was given in the month of January 1997, then in such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to hold that as the applicatio was not given in the month of October of the preceding year, the application could not have been considered. Moreover, the provisions of the Secondary School Code do not have a statutory force. They are executive instructions. 8. The contention of Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that because of the opening of the (6) respondent no.4 / school, it has resulted in the reduction of the number of students in the petitioner / school, does not impress us for the reason that the competition would enhance the academic excellence and that would be in the interest of the students. 9. The respondent no.4 is running the school since 1997. There are no complaints in respect of functioning of the said school. 10. In view of the above premise, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1656