1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4029 of 2010 [Sufiya Unique Muslim Welfare Education Society Vs. The State of Mah. & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. Kankale, AGP for respondents. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 25th August, 2011. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni for petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Kankale for respondents. 2. Challenge is to order dated 12th March, 2010, by which the proposal of petitioner submitted in the year 2008-09 for starting a school from VIIIth standard onwards in Urdu medium has been rejected, mentioning that in existing schools, there are vacancies and hence new school is not needed. 3. Mr. Kulkarni has invited our attention to a statement made on affidavit in para 5 of the petition to show position in relation to six schools. He states that as against permissible intake capacity and proportionate number of 2 sections actual admissions in excess have already taken place and, thus, there are total 404 students. 4. Learned AGP, on the other hand, has urged that there is no recommendation either of District-level Committee or State-level Committee and he is relying upon affidavit of Education Officer, particularly para 5 therein, to show that as against intake capacity of 1740 students, total number of admitted students is only 1536, i.e., about 204 students less. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of petition. 5. Mr. Kulkarni has invited attention to the annexure accompanying the reply to show that how position in relation to twelve schools located within Amravati Municipal Corporation area is brought before this Court by the Education Officer. According to him, first four schools are within city, while the remaining schools are on the outskirts of city. He points out that for 2008-09, students admitted are 1826, while intake capacity was 1740 and, thus, about 86 students have been admitted in excess. According to him, 65 is the number of students for which a section can be sanctioned. 6. After considering material placed before this Court, we are not in a position to accept the reasons as communicated to petitioner in the impugned order dated 12th March, 2010 as correct one. Non-application of mind is apparent. The Division Bench of this Court in 3 cases of [1] Dnyanganga Krida Arogya Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Mah. & others [2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 130], and [2] Shiv Bhim Jyoti Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Vs. State of Mah. & others [2007 (3) ALL MR 136] has already emphasized the necessity of recording reasons while granting or rejecting such request. In this view of the matter, without going further into the controversy, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12th March, 2010 and direct the respondent no.1 to take appropriate decision on the strength of correct data, and if possible, after hearing the petitioner, within twelve weeks from today. 7. Writ Petition is, thus, partly allowed with no order as to costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|