wp11164.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.11164 OF 2010. Shivchhattrapati Shikshan Sanstha, at Post Jajnur, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur through its Secretary Shri Govind s/o Baburao Shinde, age 37 years, occu. Social Worker, r/o At Post Jajnur, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The Coompetent Authority, and Director, Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune-1 and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.A. Nimbalkar, Advocate h/f Shri Salunke V.D., Advocate for Petitioner. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for R.Nos.1,3,4 & 5. Shri G.J. Karne, Advocate for Respondent No.6. ... CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 26th APRIL, 2011. PER COURT: 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the wp11164.10 2 Commissioner, Handicapped Welfare, State of Maharashtra, Pune by which the request made on the part of the petitioner institution for granting registration certificate to run the institution for handicapped was rejected. In this connection, it is required to be noted that initially the institution had applied for such registration which was rejected by the concerned Cabinet Minister in the year, 2000. Thereafter, the Institution had preferred an appeal before the State Minister, who allowed the said appeal, on the basis of which the petitioner had approached to the Commissioner for getting permission. The Commissioner, by his order dated 10th January, 2008, rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that once the Cabinet Minister had already rejected the request of the Institution, there is no question of granting permission for starting institution for handicapped. The Commissioner rightly found that when the Cabinet Minister dismissed the appeal of the wp11164.10 3 petitioner institution on 24th August, 2000, there was no question of entertaining appeal again by the State Minister after about two years i.e. in February, 2002. The request of the petitioner for getting the registration certificate was accordingly rejected by the Commissioner. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that since the appeal was allowed by the State Minister in the year, 2002, the Commissioner should have granted necessary registration certificate for running the institution. In this regard, it is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the appeal was already dismissed in the year, 2000 by the Cabinet Minister and further appeal was not maintainable before the State Minister. Even then, entertaining such appeal by the State Minister is clearly without jurisdiction. Apart from the said aspect, there is also certain dispute going on between wp11164.10 4 the petitioner and respondent No.6 as according to the respondent No.6, the petitioner is not in the management and he is wrongly trying to take over the management, and in view of the dispute between two groups of the management, the trust is unable to get registration. We are not required to express any opinion on this aspect. Suffice it to say that when the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Cabinet Minister in the year, 2000, the Commissioner is right in refusing to grant registration certificate in favour of the petitioner for running the institution. 3. If there is any subsequent development after passing of the order by the Commissioner, it will be open to the petitioner to apply afresh for registration. If any fresh application is filed by the petitioner, it will be open for the contesting respondent to make submissions before the competent authority and the authority shall wp11164.10 5 pass appropriate order in this regard, according to law, as to whether registration certificate now can be granted in the changed circumstances or not. On this aspect, we have not expressed any opinion and the concerned authority to decide the application filed afresh, if any, in accordance with law, expeditiously. Subject to what has been observed above, petition is rejected. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ P.B.MAJMUDAR, J] Kadam/*