1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7301 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8167 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8189 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8190 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8191 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8276 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s | orders orders | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2010 Delay in filing reply affidavit of the State Government in any of these cases is condoned. Reply affidavit is taken on record. 2. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions are taken up 2 for final hearing at admission stage. 3. The principal grievance of the petitioners on the basis of which we are inclined to dispose of these petitions is that the authority realising that there were certain discrepancies issued directions on 20-05-2009 to submit re- scrutiny report within 15 days. In reply affidavit filed there is no disclosure of the fact that such re- scrutiny report was in fact received by respondent No.1, before the impugned decision was taken so as to reject the petitioners' request for starting primary and / or secondary Urdu schools. Assuming that re-scrutiny report was submitted by the competent authority in terms of the directions contained in communication dated 20-05-2009, impugned decision does not refer to the fact nor reply affidavit filed before us suggest that same was considered by respondent No.1. In other words, impugned decision 3 has been taken by respondent No.1 sans re-scrutiny report submitted in terms of direction contained in communication dated 20-05-2009. The entire purpose of inviting re-scrutiny report would, therefore, become meaningless. On account of not consideration of the re- scrutiny report submitted by the authority, the impugned decision suffers from non application of mind, if not perverse. 4. In the circumstances, we dispose of these petitions by setting aside the impugned decision and instead direct respondent No.1 to reconsider the proposals of the petitioners afresh from the stage of receipt of re-scrutiny report in terms of the communication dated 20-05-2009 in accordance with law. Respondent No.1 shall take final decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks from today keeping in mind that 4 new academic year would commence from June-2010. All questions are left open. 5. All these petitions are disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute on the above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.) sut/FEB10/wp7301.09