1 W.P.No.3031 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3031 OF 2008 Chetna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhe Borgaon, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded, Through its President ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.D. Bachate, Advocate holding for Mr V.P. Latange for the petitioner; Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 7 & 11; Mr D.V. Soman, Advocate for respondents no.2, 9 & 10; Mr V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent no.12 CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 25th November, 2011 PER COURT : The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking direction against the respondents that a residential school under scheme "Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya" be granted to the petitioner. Both the sides are heard. 2 W.P.No.3031 of 2008 2. The petitioner is an educational institution. In the year 2004-05 the Central Government took a decision to start at least 750 residential schools for girl students and the schools were to be named as Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya. Around 36 schools were allotted to the share of Maharashtra. Committees were constituted at State level, District level and Tahsil level as per the scheme prepared by the Central Government and advertisements were published in newspapers. In response to the advertisements, the petitioner applied for a school which was to be started at Biloli, District Nanded. Even after the date fixed for submission of the applications, some more applications were accepted by the Committee. Respondent no.13 is said to to be under control of one M.L.A. and its application was received after the prescribed date. Respondent no.13, however, came to be deleted before starting of the hearing of the proceedings. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Committee constituted for preparing proposal gave marks to the applicants on the basis of infrastructure available with them and so far as the Biloli Centre is concerned, the petitioner secured highest marks. It is contended that as respondent no.13 institution was not getting the school at Biloli, the State Government changed its policy and instead of 3 W.P.No.3031 of 2008 granting the schools to N.G.Os., decided to run the remaining schools on the lines of Navodaya Vidyalaya. It is contended that this policy decision is taken with mala fide intention and only to deprive the petitioner of the right to get such school. 4. The respondents have filed reply and the allegations are denied. It is contended that in view of the various disputes raised by N.G.Os. and considering the feasibility, the policy decision is taken by the State Government and there are no mala fides. It was submitted that as on today 43 schools are running and out of the schools, only 16 schools were granted to N.G.Os. and they were granted prior to the date of policy decision. 5. The petitioner has produced some record which includes copies of minutes of the meetings held by the various Committees. There is also a copy of scheme prepared by the Central Government and copies of correspondence made by the Central Government with the State. 6. The guidelines prepared by the Central Government for implementation of the scheme show that the estimated cost of Rs. 26.25 Lacs was on non-recurring cost per school and the estimated 4 W.P.No.3031 of 2008 cost of Rs.19.05 Lacs was the expenses of recurring cost per year. The State was to share its liability and thus each N.G.O. was to get initially around Rs.36 Lacs per school. The scheme shows that the schools were to be opened in rented or other available Government buildings after deciding location. The policy decision of the Central Government in respect of reservation was to be followed and priority was to be given to the girls belonging to Backward Class and Economically Backward Class. N.G.Os. were to be involved in running of the schools wherever possible. The scheme was to be implemented by the State Government through Mahila Samakhya (MS) society in M.S. State and through Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in other States. The Teachers and staff were to receive training through Block Resource Centres and Mahila Samakhya Resource Groups. There are some other guidelines regarding methodology of running the schools. It was submitted for the respondents that in most of the other States the scheme is implemented by the State Governments and it is the State Government which is running such schools in other States. It was submitted that there are many disputes in view of the complaints made by the N.G.Os. and against the N.G.Os. and due to that such policy decision was taken. 5 W.P.No.3031 of 2008 7. A copy of Government Resolution dated 27.5.2008 issued by the State Government is produced. It shows that on the date of the Govt. Resolution out of 36 such schools, 16 schools were given to N.G.Os. and remaining could not be allotted due to such disputes. There was apprehension that the grants given by the Central Government would not be utilized and the girls of Backward Class and Economically Backward Class would be deprived of the benefits of the scheme due to such disputes. In view of these circumstances, the State Government constituted Committees on District Level and Tahsil level and made the District Collector Chairman of the District Committee. They are expected to control and run such schools and guidelines in that regard are also prepared. Thus, not only in respect of one school which was to be granted at Biloli but the decision was taken in respect of 20 such schools. In view of this circumstance, it is not possible to accept that with mala fide intention the State has taken such decision. It was submitted that more schools are granted by the Central Government and the policy decision taken by the State Government will be applicable to the newly allotted schools also. Though the record shows that the petitioner secured highest marks, only due to the circumstance, it cannot be said that the petitioner has the vested right to get such school at Biloli. The petitioner has prayed for cancellation of policy 6 W.P.No.3031 of 2008 so far as the Biloli Centre is concerned. 8. For the respondents two reported cases were cited; 2006 AIR SCW 3601 (Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and 2005 AIR SCW 6536 (State of Orissa & ors. vs. Gopinath Dash & ors). The Apex Court has observed that in the matter of policy decision or exercise of discretion by the Government, so long as infringement of fundamental right is not shown, Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. It is further observed that in assessing the propriety of the decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition laid down in the two cases. In view of the facts of the case and aforesaid position about judicial review, this Court holds that no interference is warranted in the policy decision taken by the State and so the petition stands rejected. (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) amj/wp3031.08