1 wp9901-10 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9901 OF 2010 Shri Swami Samartha Shikshan Sanstha, Through its President :- Shri Pandurang Rathod ... Petitioner. V/s. The Hon’ble Cabinet Minister, Social Justice & Special Assistance, V.J.N.T. Social Welfare Department, Maharashtra State & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Ashish Gatagat i/by Amit Karkhanis for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP., for the respondent/State. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 6th JANUARY, 2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner institution has challenged the order passed by the Director, Welfare, State of Maharashtra as well as the appellate order passed by the Government in connection with cancellation of approval given to the petitioner institution. The petitioner institution is running a Ashram Shala at Shivaji Nagar, Taluka Akkalkot, District Solapur. During the inspection certain deficiencies were 2 wp9901-10 found by the officer such as want of bathroom facilities, toilet facilities as well as regarding the strength of the students. As per the deficiencies noticed by the Department, the petitioner institution is running the school with inadequate strength of the students. It was found during the inspection that 27 out of 118 and 13 non-residential students out of 92 were present in the school on the relevant date. It was noticed that toilet facilities were not adequate. It was also found that neither bathroom facilities nor pure drinking water facilities are available. It was also noticed that there was no proper electricity facilities in the residential area of the students as well as other deficiencies were also found which were mentioned in the notice. The petitioner gave detailed reply and gave explanation regarding deficiencies. After considering the say of the petitioner, the Director found that even in past the society was given a chance to improve itself by way of removing the deficiencies but it was found that no improvement was made by the institution. It was found that the institution is running the school in violation of the government policies. Before the Director, the Head Master of the Institution requested for two days for furnishing explanation. Even after that time was over, no explanation was given. After considering the material on record, the Director passed an order cancelling the approval granted to the petitioner institution. With a view to see that the students enrolled should not suffer, it was directed that as regards the resident students studying in the petitioner Ashramshala, action should be taken to admit them in the other nearby Ashramshala and to admit the non-resident students into any other approved schools. Regarding the existing staff of the institution, it is ordered that action should be taken as per the present government policy and rules. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Government. The appeal was heard by the Minister for Social Justice Welfare Department. The appellate authority by its order dated 18.10.2010 confirmed the order 3 wp9901-10 passed by the Director and the appellate authority also passed an order to enroll the resident students in other Ashram Shalas. The appellate order has also granted protection of the services of the existing employees. Considering the impugned orders, in our view, this is not a case where this Court should interfere with the order of the Director which is approved in appeal in its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the institution is running with so many deficiencies such as want of toilet facilities, bathroom facilities, want of proper arrangement for pure drinking water, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents is arbitrary in any manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that it is not a case of the petitioner that the action is taken with some extraneous considerations or on malafide grounds. Considering the reasoning given by the Director as well as the appellate authority, we find no substance in this petition. Hence, it is rejected. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.