1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4915 OF 2009 Master Drashtant Yogesh Bosmiya(Minor)..Petitioner Through His Natural Guardian Yogesh Pranjivan Bosmiya V/s. RBK School Primary School & ors ..Respondents Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/b.Mr.P.S.Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Simil Purohit a/w. Mr.Ashok Purohit, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr.V.P.Malvankar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.2 Mr.N.R.Bubna i/b.Mr.Mandar V. Limaye, Advocate, for respondent No.6 CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 23RD JULY, 2009 P.C. . By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction that the petitioner i.e. Master Drashtant Yogesh Bosmiya be admitted in the 1st Standard Class of the Primary School run by respondent No.1. The said relief is sought on the 2 basis that the petitioner i.e. Master Drashtant Yogesh Bosmiya was studying in Senior KG class in the RBK School. Respondent No.1  School is set up by the foundation known as Babubhai Kanakia Foundation Trust . Therefore, whether a Writ would lie against respondent No.1 is itself in question. 2. Be that as it may, the fees for the 1st Standard were to be paid by 10th February, 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that though, fees were tendered, the same were not accepted, whereas it is the case of the respondents that the fees were never tendered before the last date i.e. 10th February, 2009. The petitioner, therefore, could not be granted admission to the 1st Standard. In our view, whether fees were in fact tendered in time or not involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact, which in the Writ Jurisdiction is impermissible. In the Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1  School, it has been stated that the representative of the 3 Solicitors of the respondent No.1 was threatened by the father of the petitioner. A letter of the Solicitors of the respondent No.1 is annexed to the Affidavit-in-reply of the respondent No.1. It has further been stated in the said Affidavit that the respondent No.1 is, therefore, not interested in admitting the petitioner. The said reason is in addition to the reason that fees have not been paid in time. The material on record also discloses that the relations between the parties are strained. The issue being one as regards the education of a child, who is seeking admission in the 1st Standard. Therefore, considering the said aspect we are of the view that it would not be desirable that the petitioner should be admitted in the respondent No.1  School to avoid further complications. In view of the fact that there is a serious dispute as to whether the fees were paid in time as also considering the fact that the relations of the parties are strained, and also considering the fact whether a Writ would lie 4 against the respondent No.1, we are of the view that this is not a fit case wherein the relief sought by the petitioner can be granted by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr.Simil Purohit, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 tenders a letter dated 11th June, 2009, of the Principal of one SEVEN SQUARE ACADEMY, Mira Road (E), Thane, in which it has been stated that the petitioner has been admitted to the 1st Standard of the said School. The said fact is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts we do not find any merit in the above Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( S.B.MHASE, J. )