45wp969.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 969 of 2010 (Shree Pandharinath Maharaj Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha .vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and F. M. Reis, JJ. Date : 04/05/2010. Heard Mr.M.R.Joharapurkar, Adv. for petitioner and Mr.J.B.Jaiswal, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1. This petition is directed against the communication dt. 31.10.2008 whereby the application of the petitioner for opening Junior College for the Academic Session 2008-09 at Kherda (Kali) came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's Sanstha does not have secondary school and there are other higher secondary schools located in the vicinity. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, both these grounds mentioned in the communication, on the basis of which the proposal of the petitioner came to be rejected, are without legal basis. It is contended that there is neither a policy of the Government in this regard nor any Government Resolution which 45wp969.10.odt 2 . entitles the Authorities to reject the application on these two grounds. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned communication is bad and unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr.J.B.Jaiswal, Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute that the application of the petitioner for grant of permission to start Junior College came to be rejected on the above referred two grounds, which, according to him, is based on the communication issued by the Director of Education dt. 9.5.2008. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. Though it it stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the above referred grounds in view of communication dt. 9.5.2008 issued by the Director; however, the impugned communication dt. 31.10.2008 is completely silent in this regard. Nothing is placed before us by the respondents to hold that the said communication issued by the Director of Education has legal basis or it is as per the policy of the Government. In absence thereof, we are of the view that the application of the petitioner needs to be re- considered by the State Government afresh and the State Government shall take a decision in accordance with law and procedure applicable within a period of six weeks from the date of 45wp969.10.odt 3 . communication of this order by giving reasons. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the communication dt. 31.10.2008 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the State government for re-consideration of the issue in the light of observations made by us hereinabove. The petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE jais