(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4506 OF 1994 Shri Vidya Niketan Shikshan Sanstha, Osmanabad, through its President, Shri Vasant s/o. Rangnathrao Kirdatta, Aged : 62 years, Occupation : Pensioner, R/o. Alani, Taluka and District : Osmanabad, now residing at Anandnagar, Osmanabad, Taluka and District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra, in the Department of Education, Mantralaya, Fort, Bombay. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. (2) 5. Shri Sant Mauli Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Osmanabad, through its Secretary, Shri Tanaji s/o. Govindrao Mane, Aged : 30 years, Occupation : Service as Teacher, R/o. Tambari Vibhag, Osmanabad, Taluka and District : Osmanabad. 6. Shri Sant Mauli Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Osmanabad, through its President, Shri Phulchand s/o. Limbraj Gade, Aged : 40 years, Occupation : Teacher at Shripatrao Bhosale High School, Osmanabad, R/o. Teacher's Colony, Tambari Vibhag, Osmanabad, Taluka and District : Osmanabad. 7. Dr. Padmasimha Patil, Minister, Department of Home, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Bombay. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. D.V. Tele, Advocate, for respondent no.5. Respondent no.6 served (Absent). Respondent no.7 served (Absent). (3) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The present petition challenges the decision of the State Government, vide letter dated 15th October 1994, thereby granting permission to start a secondary school at village Alani (Taluka and District : Osmanabad), to respondent no.5, and not granting permission in favour of the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though the proposal of the petitioner / Institution was complete in all respects, and though the proposal of respondent no.5 was lacking in material requirements, the State has illegally granted permission in favour of respondent no. 5. He, therefore, submits that the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. From the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.4, we find, that the permission has been granted to respondent no.5, to open a secondary school, in the year (4) 1994-95. It can be seen that the said school is functioning properly. The said school is also brought on grant in aid basis. We find, that any interference, at this stage, particularly when the school is running for a period of 15 years, would seriously jeopardize interest of the students who are already studying in the said school. 4. In that view of the matter, we do not find that a case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4506