1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PEITION (L) NO.1311 OF 2008 Samskar Shikshan Sangh & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus The Education Inspector South Zone & Ors. ...Respondents. ....... Mr. Mihir Desai with Mr. A.G. Kothari for the Petitioners. Mr. Jasbir Saluja, AGP for the Respondents. ...... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & K. U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. May 15, 2008. P.C.: Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. The Petitioners conduct and manage a School by the name of Modern School which imparts primary and secondary education in the Gujarati and English media of institution, leading upto the SSC Board Examination. The School was established over seventy years 2 ago, in 1936. The Petitioners claim to be an institution set up by a linguistic minority, namely, of Gujarati speaking persons and assert that they are entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. In recognition of the minority status of the Petitioners, an exemption has been granted by the Competent Authority with reference to the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. On 26th September 2001, the Petitioners applied for permission for starting a parallel English Medium School and followed this up with an application dated 17th October 2002 to the Deputy Director of Education. Recognition for the primary school from Standards 1 to 4 has been granted by the Municipal Corporation by an order dated 16th December 2004. As a part of the natural growth of existing students, the Petitioners commenced Standard V in the parallel English Medium School with effect from 2004-05 and addressed a letter dated 4th February 2005 to the First Respondent. The First Respondent was also informed by a further letter dated 23rd 3 August 2006 that as a result of the process of natural growth, the School had come upto Standard VII and would establish progressively Standards VIII, IX and X in the succeeding years. It has been stated that the Education Department conducted an inspection on 21st December 2006 and the report of inspection has found that the standards in the English Medium Secondary School meet the prescribed norms. It has been stated that on or about 18th September 2007, when the Petitioners were following up the issue, a copy of a Government Resolution dated 17th October 2006 was furnished to them. As a result of the G.R., a parallel English Medium School could not be allowed in a situation where the main School was in a medium other than the Marathi medium. On 23rd October 2007, a letter was addressed by the Education Inspector to the Petitioners stating that in terms of the G.R. dated 17th October 2006, the facility of establishing a parallel English Medium School could be allowed only to those schools in which the principal medium of instruction was Marathi and that accordingly the proposal submitted by the Petitioners was being 4 rejected. Eventually, on 4th April 2008, the Education Inspector informed the Petitioners that in the event that the Petitioners so desire, the proposal for setting up Standards 8 to 10 could be considered afresh subject to the payment of a fee of Rs. 5,000/-. In the meantime, the Petitioners have been directed to close down the English Medium School. The Petitioners have challenged in these proceedings the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 17th October 2006 in pursuance of which a decision has been taken by the authorities to decline permission to the Petitioners to set up a parallel English Medium School. Prima facie, the issues which are raised in the petition relate to the constitutional right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and are serious enough to warrant careful reflection. However, at this stage, the Learned AGP while drawing the attention of the Court to a communication dated 4th April 2008 stated that the proposal of the Petitioners for setting up an English Medium School would be considered by the Government in terms of the communication. The Learned AGP has also stated that time to do so 5 has been recently extended by the State Government until 20th May 2008. In view of this submission, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners stated that the Petitioners would not be averse to submitting a proposal in terms of the communication dated 4th April 2008 and that in the event the proposal is allowed, the main grievance of the Petitioners may not survive. At the same time, it has been urged that no coercive steps should be taken for closing down the English Medium School in the meantime, until a decision is taken on the proposal. This request is fair and proper. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, therefore, fairly stated that the petition may be disposed of at this stage leaving it open to the Petitioners to institute a fresh petition for asserting constitutional rights, should it become necessary to do so, in the case of a refusal by the State Government. In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: -(i) In terms of the communication dated 4th April 2008 issued by the Education Inspector, South Division, Mumbai (Exh.P to the 6 Petition) the Petitioners have agreed to submit a proposal for Standards 8 to 10 (with an attachment of Standards 5 to 7) and the Court is informed that this shall be done on or before 20th May 2008. The Petitioners shall pay the prescribed fee of Rs.5,000/-; -(ii) The proposal submitted by the Petitioners shall be duly considered in accordance with law and a final decision would be arrived at within a period of six weeks; -(iii) In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioners on the basis of the impugned communication dated 4th April 2008; -(iv) In the event that the proposal submitted by the Petitioners is rejected, the Petitioners would be at liberty to seek recourse to a fresh remedy for asserting such rights as they claim including on the grounds which are raised in the present proceedings. In such an event, the interim protection which has been granted hereinabove 7 shall continue to remain in operation for a period of eight weeks from the date of the decision of the Government. The petition shall accordingly stand disposed of. No order as to costs. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. VACATION JUDGE. K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. VACATION JUDGE.