{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4408 OF 2009 1. Shri Saraswato Edicatopm Sanstha Parli Vaijnath, through its Secretary Saw Suwarna Rahul Phulkar, R/o Ganeshpar, Parali Vaijnath Dist-Beed 2. Head Master Shri Saraswati Vidyalaya Parli Vaijnath, Mukund Dhondiba Maind R/o Parli Vaijnath Dist-Beed PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.1 to 3. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 9 th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of {2} parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.05.2009, issued by respondent No.3 Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, by which the petitioner institution is directed to close down the sectional school run by the petitioner institution. 3. It appears that the petitioner is a trust engaged in imparting education since 1952. It further appears that in the year 1976, the petitioner started sectional primary school at Panchshil area, to which permission was granted by the respondent authorities. It also appears that with the permission of the respondent authorities, classes of 5 th to 10 th standard were started in the said sectional school by the petitioners. It is contended that in the year 1990, a notice was served on the petitioners calling upon them to provide details in respect of the educational activities and permission granted to run the sectional school. The said notice was replied by the petitioners in May 1992. In May 1991, respondent No.3, had directed the petitioners to close down the sectional school. The petitioners offered their explanation to the same. The petitioners were directed to submit details of the sectional school run by them along with relevant documents and the petitioners complied with the said direction. Thereafter, it appears, the respondent authorities have released salary of the staff of the sectional school run by the petitioners. The petitioners have annexed the relevant correspondence along with the petition. It is alleged that on account of agitation by one Kashinath Salunke, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned letters to the petitioner to close down the sectional school. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. {3} 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in group of writ petitions i.e. W.P. No. 4389/1991, 3862/1991, 4000/1991, 4022/1991, 4014/1991, 4025/1991 and 34/1992 decided on 7 th August 2002. It is held by the Division Bench in the said judgment that by a resolution dated 20.12.1988, the state government has regularized the sectional schools which were in existence on the date or prior to the date of the said resolution. It is not disputed that the sectional school run by the petitioners is started in the year 1976, to which approval was granted in the year 1990. 6. Division Bench of this Court, in writ petition No.3498/1991 has observed thus- “Admittedly, for the first time the State Government issued a Government Resolution on 20.12.1988 regulating the process for granting permission to open Sectional Schools. Applications were required to be forwarded with prescribed fee amounting to Rs.1000/- and there were also some other conditions to be complied with. On 20.07.1990, the State Government issued another Resolution and took a policy decision not to grant permission to open Sectional Schools in future. It is also stated that in case of the proposals pending for decision, it would be deemed that such Schools were not granted permission. Both these Government Resolutions, do not affect any of the petitioners’ case. However, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani issued a communication on 21.06.1991 and called upon the petitioner – Schools to close down the Sectional Schools, which were opened even prior to 20.12.1988 or 20.07.1990, as the case may be. Both these Government Resolutions, if read as it is, do not contemplate any action against the Sectional Schools which were commenced prior to 20.12.1988. The revised policy of the State Government to regulate the permissions for Sectional Schools through the Government Resolution dated 20.12.1988 and the subsequent policy not to entertain such applications vide Government Resolution dated 20.07.1990, could not have been given retrospective effect unless it was stated so specifically.” {4} 7. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, referred supra. In the premise, the impugned order dated 28.05.2009 requires to be quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, writ petition succeeds. Impugned order dated 28.05.2009, issued by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp4408-09