1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5535 OF 2010 (Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 14, 2011. Heard Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kale, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 & 2 and Shri Haq, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. The order of State Government dated 29.08.2009 permitting Respondents No. 3 & 4 to open XI Standard on permanent no grant basis from the year 2008-09 is questioned before this Court. Shri Joshi, learned counsel points out that though District Level Committee had recommended the proposed opening in favour of the respondents No. 3 & 4, State Level Committee found that there was adequate provision and hence did not accept that proposal. The State Government on 31.10.2008 rejected it after observing that there was sufficient facility for higher education. He states that this order could not have been reviewed and in any case when 2 the proposal sent by Respondents No. 3 & 4 was objected by the petitioners, who are having their own Junior College in the vicinity, the impugned order could not have been passed by State Government behind their back. He states that distance criterion is also violated in the process. Shri Kale, learned AGP as also Shri Haq, learned counsel are supporting the impugned order. Shri Haq, learned counsel points out that the petition has been filed almost after 13 months of the impugned order and after Respondents No. 3 & 4 had admitted about 52 students in XI Standard. He contends that in the petition, there is no grievance of adverse impact and only ground is of distance. In this situation, according to him, though the administrative order has been again looked into by the State Government, that by itself is not sufficient to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. After hearing respective counsel, we find that the petitioner had objected to proposed permission by pointing out possible adverse effect. The District Level Committee thereafter had noted that there was only one Junior College in the radius of 10 kms. but then further found that sufficient number of students were available and, therefore, recommended the proposal of respondents No. 3 & 4. The State Level Committee has found that the study 3 facility was sufficient and no other School/ College was required. The order dated 31.10.2008 accepted this proposal of State Government and rejected the proposal of Respondents No. 3 & 4. How the matter has been thereafter looked into by State Government is not very clear. But the perusal of impugned order dated 29.08.2009 reveals grant of permission to Respondents No. 3 & 4 on permanent no grant basis. This order again does not show the reasons for taking a different view of the matter. The requirement of assigning reasons in these circumstances is emphasized by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dnyanganga Krida Arogya Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2003 (2) Mh. L.J. 130. We find that initially proposal of Respondents No. 3 & 4 was rejected by an unreasoned order. The requirement of recording reason emphasized by the Division Bench supra is, therefore, not satisfied in the matter. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2009 (6) AIR Bom. R 773 (FB) has already held that distance criterion is not always decisive. The petitioner had, however, in its objection made a grievance about the number of students and adverse impact on its existing classes, if 4 permission is granted. This objection also has not been considered in any of the orders. Though, Shri Haq, learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioner has approached almost after 13 months from the passing of impugned order, the petitioner has attempted to demonstrate that after getting knowledge, it has approach within a period of two months. We do not find it necessary to go into this controversy in this matter. In this situation, as the petitioner has approached this Court after almost 13 months of the impugned order, we without disturbing the ongoing classes of Respondents No. 3 & 4, direct Respondent No. 1 – State Government to hear the petitioner as also Respondents No. 3 & 4 and to pass fresh orders in this respect in accordance with law laid down. The petitioner as also Respondents No. 3 & 4 shall appear before Respondent No. 1 for such hearing on 12th October 2011 and shall abide by further instructions of Respondent No. 1 in the matter. Respondent No. 1 shall attempt to take fresh decision as early as possible and in any case within a further period of four months thereafter. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.