 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 649/2009 ( Dr Shri Jayant Krishnakumar Tikhile and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 1st April, 2009. *** 1. Heard Mr H D Dangre, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr Nitin Sambre, learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 ; Mr MA Sable, for Respondent No.3; Mr R P Joshi for Respondent no.4 and Mr S M Ghodeswar for Respondent No.5. 2. The instant petition is filed by the employees of Vasantrao Naik Apang Karyashala, Amravati which is directed to be closed down vide impugned communication dated 11.12.2008 issued by Respondent No.2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the School in question was closed down since Respondent No.4 who was the running the same, showed inability to run the School. Similarly the concerned Zilla Parishad has also shown its inability to provide necessary financial aid if the State Government appoints an Administrator on the school. In such a  situation as well as in view of certain other factors, the impugned communication came to be issued by Respondent No.2. 3. Mr Ghodeswar, learned counsel for Res.No.5-Sanstha, has submitted that Respondent No.5 is ready and willing to take over the management of the School in question along with teaching and non-teaching staff of the School. 4. In the backdrop of the above-referred facts, we are of the view that the School which was imparting education to the handicapped students, should not be closed down merely because the original management, due to financial constraints, is unable to run the school. If the school is closed down, then handicapped students of the area will loose school forever which is meant for handicapped students. At the same time, even the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School will be rendered surplus and will result in causing a lot of inconvenience and hardship to them. 5. If Respondent No.5 is ready and willing to take over management of the School in question along with teaching and non-teaching staff as well as other liabilities of the school in question, Respondent No.5 should be given opportunity to do so. We permit Respondent No.5 -Sanstha to send proposal, as per the procedure applicable in this regard to the respondent no.2, within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of such proposal, we direct Respondent No.2 to scrutinize the same in accordance with law as well as  procedure applicable in this regard. If the proposal of Respondent No.5 is otherwise viable and fulfills other requisite conditions applicable in this regard, forward the said proposal to the State Government within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal. We direct the State Government to take a decision on the said proposal in accordance with law and procedure, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal from Respondent No.2. 6. With these observations and directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. 7. Steno copy allowed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare