1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5882 OF 2009 Sant Ramrao Maharaj Bahu } Uddeshiya Adarsha Shikshan } Prasarak Mandal at Ghatangri, } Taluka and District Osmanabad } Through its Secretary } Shri Vilas S/o Topaji Jadhav } Age : 40 Years, Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Bhatangri, Taluka and } District : Osmanabad. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through its Secretary, } Women and Child Development } Department, Mantralaya, } Mumbai. } 2. The Commissioner } Women and Child Development } Maharashtra State, Pune. } 3. The District Women and Child } Development Officer, } Dist. Osmanabad. } .... RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19/04/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Order dated 1/8/2009 passed by the respondents refusing to grant permission to the petitioner for starting of Balak Ashram. 3. It appears that a proposal of the petitioner complete in all respects, came to be forwarded by the respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 2. After scrutinizing said proposal, respondent no. 2 forwarded said proposal to the Govt. By virtue of an order dated 29/12/2003, the State Govt. granted provisional permission to the petitioner for starting Balak Ashram. Thereafter a proposal came to be moved before respondent no. 2 on 18/4/2009 for confirming the permission granted 3 on 29/12/2003. Respondent no. 2 found that there were several deficiencies in the infrastructural facilities being made available by the petitioner and, therefore, issued show cause notice on 18/6/2009. In the said show cause notice, certain deficiencies were pointed out in the infrastructure and accordingly the petitioner on 7/7/2009 submitted its reply. The impugned order came to be issued on 1/8/2009 on the ground that the petitioner had not cured/removed the lacunae which were noticed and no reply had been filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 4. A copy of the reply submitted by the petitioner and annexed to the petition clearly discloses an acknowledgment on behalf of the respondents of having received copies of the same. It was necessary for the respondents to have considered said reply. The petitioner claims that none of the deficiencies, which were noticed, are existing today and the petitioner has complied with all the norms and the standards prescribed by the respondents. The learned Govt. Pleader pointed out that prior to the issuance of the impugned order, the inspection has been carried out and the deficiencies were still noticed. 5. It would not be possible for this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to determine if the deficiencies are still existing or existed when the impugned order came to be passed. The petitioner claims to have 4 removed all the deficiencies and none of the deficiencies existed when the order impugned in the present petition came to be passed. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, since the petitioner has invested huge amount in the infrastructure, the petitioner is entitled to have the respondents’ visit to the place where the infrastructure is standing and ascertain afresh that the deficiencies are existing today. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, the petition succeeds. Rule is thus made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to carry out the inspection of the premises within two weeks from today and thereafter to pass order in accordance with law within two weeks of the date of the inspection. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 5882.09 ( J )