1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2182 OF 2010. Anjuman Urdu Education Society and another -: versus :- Illiyas Ahmad Ejaj Ahmad and others. WRIT PETITION No. 2183 OF 2010. Anjuman Urdu Education Society and another -: versus :- Mohd. Atil Kausar and others. WRIT PETITION No. 2184 OF 2010. Anjuman Urdu Education Society and another -: versus :- Sayyad Moinuddin Sayyad Naimuddin and others. WRIT PETITION No. 2185 OF 2010. Anjuman Urdu Education Society and another -: versus :- Nasir Khan Majid Khan and others. WRIT PETITION No. 2186 OF 2010. Anjuman Urdu Education Society and another -: versus :- Mohd. Shahjad Mohd. Alimuddin and others. WRIT PETITION No. 2187 OF 2010. Anjuman Urdu Education Society and another -: versus :- Irshadullah Khan Rafiulla Khan and others. WRIT PETITION No. 2188 OF 2010. Anjuman Urdu Education Society and another -: versus :- Bashir Hussain Saheb Hussain and others. WRIT PETITION No. 2189 OF 2010. Anjuman Urdu Education Society and another -: versus :- Danish Adil Khan and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 23 , 2010. I have heard Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri A. Dhore, learned Counsel for Respondent no.1, Shri P. Mahalle, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and learned A.G.P. for Education Officer, in all matters. The parties were heard earlier also and thereafter this Court directed the Deputy Director of Education to find 2 out which set of documents produced before this Court is correct. That reply has also come. The petitioner contends that as Headmaster [now retired] has not handed over the charge, some correspondence was made by the President and new Headmaster and then respective respondent no.1 has supplied the copies of the documents with them to the petitioners and those copies have been used by the petitioner. Respective respondent no.1 is disputing this statement. According to them, they have not supplied any document to the petitioner. The other set of document is procured by the petitioner under Right to Information Act from the Education Officer. Respondent no.3 also claims that he had also sought documents under Right to Information Act from the Deputy Director and that set of documents given by the Deputy Director Office is correct. He denied documents produced by the petitioner. Thus, there is dispute between the parties about the identity of the documents. The said dispute is being raised for the first time before this Court and the School Tribunal had no opportunity to look into the same. I, therefore, find it appropriate to permit the School Tribunal to look into both the sets and the 3 controversy to prima facie to find out, whether the respective respondent no.1 is entitled to grant of interim relief. Only for that purpose and subject to clear understanding that arrangement as prevailing because of interim orders of this Court passed on 05.05.2010 shall continue till the School Tribunal decides the application for grant of interim relief filed by the respective respondent no.1, the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 is set aside. The parties to appear before the School Tribunal on 31.08.2010 and the School Tribunal to hear the respective parties and pass fresh orders on that application within a period of one month thereafter. The School Tribunal shall not be influenced by its earlier order or by any observations made by this Court in the matter. Till the School Tribunal decides the prayer for interim relief afresh, the arrangement as per orders of this Court dated 05.05.2010 shall continue. Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.