:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6462 OF 2007 The Secretary, Shri Shahu Chh. Apang Kalyan Sanstha, Kagal and two ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Baliram Baburao Nagrale ..Respondent Mr. Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for petitioners. Mr. R.S. Ghadge i/by Mr.A.S. Desai for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : January 15, 2008. Date : January 15, 2008. Date : January 15, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent has filed Appeal No. 138 of 1999 before the School Tribunal. The petitioners had filed their reply before the School Tribunal on or about 13/1/2000 and four years later i.e. on 13/3/2004 they moved an application stating that the Mukh Badhir Vidhyalaya, Kagal where the appellant was working was a school meant for deaf and dumb children and the :2: permission is granted by the State of Maharashtra for 1 to 7th standard. They further claimed that the said school was not a private school within the meaning of the M.E.P.S. Act and, therefore, the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the said Act was not maintainable. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal did not agree with the objection raised and on the other hand he referred to the definition of private school under Section 2(2) and 2(24) and held that there was no material on record to suggest that the school concerned was an Ashram School. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of S.T. Francis Industrial Training Institute and ors. vs. P.J. Jose and ors. [2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 570]. 2. During the course of hearing of this petition, on 8/1/2008 as well as today, the learned counsel for the petitioners was called upon to place on record a copy of the permission granted to run the said school but he could not produce the same. However, he submitted that the permission was not granted by the :3: Director as defined under the M.E.P.S. Act and the permission was granted by the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Maharashtra. Obviously, all these details were not set out in the application submitted before the School Tribunal and, therefore, the School Tribunal could not address on the issue of permission granted to the said school. Consequently, no fault could be found that the impugned order. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the route of the matter i.e. the maintainability of appeal, the petitioners should be granted liberty to apply afresh with better particulars and on the basis of the orders issued by the State Government through the Department of Welfare. The request made is reasonable. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected. At the same time, if the petitioners submit a fresh application :4: with all necessary documents within a period of two weeks from today, the same application shall be heard and decided on its own merits and without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned order. The application shall be heard and decided within six weeks from its presentation after hearing both the parties. 5. Writ to go to the School Tribunal forthwith. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)