1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 862 of 2009 Shivaji v. MS Secondary and HS Edn Board and anr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr A.Z. Jibhkate, Adv for petitioner. Mr Anand Parchure, Adv for respdt. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 3rd March 2009 1. Heard Mr A.Z. Jibhkate, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr Anand Parchure, learned counsel for respondent. Writ Petition is directed against the communication dated 2.2.2009 issued to the Principal of the School run by the petitioner Sanstha whereby it is informed that examination centre allotted to the said school is cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent in cancelling the examination centre and allotting it to respondent no. 2 is inconsistent with the norms and guidelines. It is contended that petitioner, in fact, has all the infrastructural facilities to provide 2 proper class rooms, furniture, water etc. and, therefore, there was no occasion for respondent no. 1 to cancel the allotment of examination centre. It is further contended that the examination centre is now allotted to respondent no. 2 which is a residential school and as per the norms applicable in this regard the said school is not entitled to get examination centre. Mr Anand Parchure, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has submitted that the action is taken in the interest of students as well as considering the infrastructural facilities such as - proper class- rooms, furniture, fans etc. available in respondent no.2 School. It is further submitted that there is no rule which prohibits allotment of examination centre to a residential school. 2. Considered the rival contentions and perused the photographs shown to us by Mr Anand Parchure, learned counsel for respondent no.1 of the school building owned by petitioner as well as respondent no.2 School. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the statement made by respondent no.1 in its written submissions. Similarly, looking at the photographs, it appears that respondent no.2 has much better building. Even otherwise, learned for the petitioner was unable to show to the Court any rule which prohibits allotment of centre to the residential school. In absence thereof, in our view, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. 3 Judge. Judge. hsj