( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7825 OF 2010 Moreshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .. Petitioner Through its Secretary Shri Ashruba s/o. Uttamrao Kagade Age. 47 yrs., Occ. Social Worker, R/o. Moreshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Moregaon, Tal. & Dist. Beed. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Chief Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (Secondary) Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. Mr. R.P. Bhumkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9442 of 2010 Sant Pundlik Shikshan Pratisthan .. Petitioner Somthan, Tal. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded, Through its President. ( 2 ) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Mr. Anand V. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9457 of 2010 Mohd Isak Patel Memorial Education Society, .. Petitioner At Post – Jawalal Bazar, Tq. Aundha, District – Hingoli, Through its President - Shri Shaikh Fareed s/o. Mohd. Isak, Age – Adult, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At Post – Jawalal Bazar, Tq. Aundha, District – Hingoli. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. ( 3 ) Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9458 of 2010 Renuka Mata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, .. Petitioner At Post – Jalalpur, Tq. Aundha, District – Hingoli, through its President - Shri Sanjay s/o. Srirangrao Mundhe, Age. 34 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Wrundawan Colony, Parbhani, Tq. & District – Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9459 of 2010 Jambulbet Sevabhavi Sanstha, .. Petitioner At Jawala Post – Palam, Tq. Palam, Dist – Parbhani, Through its Secretary - Shri Shivaji s/o. Vishwanathrao Poul, Age. Adult, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At Post – Basmat Road, Parbhani, Tq. Dist. - Parbhani. ( 4 ) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9460 of 2010 Chandragiri Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, .. Petitioner At Jawala Post – Pardi, Tq. Aundha, Dist – Hingoli, through its President - Shri Damodhar s/o. Ramkrishna Sangle, Age. 34 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Jintur, Aundha Road, Tq. Jintur, Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. ( 5 ) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9461 of 2010 Community Aid and Agriculture Sponsorship .. Petitioner Programme, At post – Vita, Tq. Pathari, Dist. Parbhani, through its Secretary - Shri Shankar s/o. Raghunathrao Pawar, Age. 35 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. Datta Nagar, Jintur Road, Parbhani, Tq.Dist. Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9462 of 2010 Aacharya Bahu-uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha .. Petitioner At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq.. Dist – Parbhani, Through its President - Shri Nagnath s/o. Munjaji Surve, Age. 65 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq. Dist. - Parbhani. ( 6 ) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9463 of 2010 Aacharya Bahu-uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha .. Petitioner At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq.. Dist – Parbhani, Through its President - Shri Nagnath s/o. Munjaji Surve, Age. 65 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq. Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondents. ( 7 ) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9464 of 2010 Tirupati Balaji Sevabhavi and Shaikshanik .. Petitioner Trust, At Post–Tad Limla, Tq.,Dist.Parbhani through its President - Shri Bhanudas s/o. Sakharam Shere, Age. Adult, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At Post – Limla, Tq. Dist. Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9465 of 2010 Tirupati Balaji Sevabhavi and Shaikshanik .. Petitioner Trust, At Post–Tad Limla, Tq.,Dist.Parbhani through its President - Shri Bhanudas s/o. Sakharam Shere, Age. Adult, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At Post – Limla, Tq. Dist. Parbhani. Versus ( 8 ) 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9466 of 2010 Aacharya Bahu-uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha .. Petitioner At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq.. Dist – Parbhani, Through its President - Shri Nagnath s/o. Munjaji Surve, Age. 65 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq. Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondents. ( 9 ) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9467 of 2010 Urmila Bhatakya – Vimukta Mahila Gramvikas .. Petitioner Sanstha, At post – Shetodi, Tq. Kamalnuri, Dist – Hingoli, Through its President - Smt. Vimal d/o. Pralhadrao Wadkute, Age. 35 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. Kalyan Nagar, Basmat Road, Parbhani, Tq.Dist. Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9468 of 2010 Urmila Bhatakya – Vimukta Mahila Gramvikas .. Petitioner Sanstha, At post – Shetodi, Tq. Kamalnuri, Dist – Hingoli, Through its President - Smt. Vimal d/o. Pralhadrao Wadkute, Age. 35 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. Kalyan Nagar, Basmat Road, Parbhani, Tq.Dist. Parbhani. Versus ( 10 ) 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9469 of 2010 Aacharya Bahu-uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha .. Petitioner At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq.. Dist – Parbhani, Through its President - Shri Nagnath s/o. Munjaji Surve, Age. 65 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq. Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9470 of 2010 ( 11 ) Aacharya Bahu-uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha .. Petitioner At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq.. Dist – Parbhani, Through its President - Shri Nagnath s/o. Munjaji Surve, Age. 65 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At Yeldarkar Colony, Parbhani, Tq. Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9471 of 2010 Kalptaru Gramin Vikas Pratistan, .. Petitioner At Post – Shaikh, Tq. Jintur, Dist – Parbhani, Through its Secretary - Shri Sandeep s/o. Balasaheb Sontakke, Age. 26 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. At post – Mandakhali, Tq.Dist. - Parbhani. Versus ( 12 ) 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. P.A. Salvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9472 of 2010 Kalptaru Gramin Vikas Pratistan, .. Petitioner At Post – Shaikh, Tq. Jintur, Dist – Parbhani, Through its Secretary - Shri Sandeep s/o. Balasaheb Sontakke, Age. 26 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. At post – Mandakhali, Tq.Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. P.A. Salvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9473 of 2010 ( 13 ) Kalptaru Gramin Vikas Pratistan, .. Petitioner At Post – Shaikh, Tq. Jintur, Dist – Parbhani, Through its Secretary - Shri Sandeep s/o. Balasaheb Sontakke, Age. 26 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. At post – Mandakhali, Tq.Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. P.A. Salvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9474 of 2010 Kalptaru Gramin Vikas Pratistan, .. Petitioner At Post – Shaikh, Tq. Jintur, Dist – Parbhani, Through its Secretary - Shri Sandeep s/o. Balasaheb Sontakke, Age. 26 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. At post – Mandakhali, Tq.Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. ( 14 ) 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. P.A. Salvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9475 of 2010 Kalptaru Gramin Vikas Pratistan, .. Petitioner At Post – Shaikh, Tq. Jintur, Dist – Parbhani, Through its Secretary - Shri Sandeep s/o. Balasaheb Sontakke, Age. 26 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. At post – Mandakhali, Tq.Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. P.A. Salvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9476 of 2010 Kalptaru Gramin Vikas Pratistan, .. Petitioner At Post – Shaikh, Tq. Jintur, Dist – Parbhani, Through its Secretary - Shri Sandeep s/o. Balasaheb Sontakke, ( 15 ) Age. 26 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. At post – Mandakhali, Tq.Dist. - Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. P.A. Salvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9478 of 2010 Gramin Shikshan Sanstha .. Petitioner Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur, District – Latur, Through its Secretary Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Dy. Director of Education, Latur, Region Latur. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. ( 16 ) Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6609 of 2010 Shri Rameshwar Gramin Vidya Vikas Pratisthan.. Petitioner At & P. Dongargaon, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Secretary Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through the Principal Secretary, Primary Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya Annex. Mumbai – 32. 3. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune Region, Pune. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6610 of 2010 Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .. Petitioner Kedgaon Devi, Ahmednagar, Through its President, Prabhakarrao Marutrao Gund ( 17 ) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through the Principal Secretary, Primary Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya Annex. Mumbai – 32. 3. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune Region, Pune. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 5. The Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation Education Board, The Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar. Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7520 of 2010 Dnyansagar Shikshan Sanstha, .. Petitioner Jai Bajrang Colony, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its President Mr. Kavadu s/o. Vithoba Waghmare, Age. 62 years, Occ. Service, R/o. K-8, Jai Bajrang Colony, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ( 18 ) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of Education (School) Maharashtra State, Pune. Administrative Building, Pune Station, Pune, Dist. Pune. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. Mr. B.L. Sagar-Killarikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9492 of 2010 Tuljabhawani Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan .. Petitioner Prakarak Mandal, Golegaon, Through its President, Narayan s/o. Devrao Pawar, Age. 45 years, Occ. Social Worker & Agriculturist, R/o. Golegaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune Fort, Mumbai – 1. ( 19 ) Mr. I.D. Maniyar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9495 of 2010 Community Aid and Agriculture Sponsorship .. Petitioner Programme, At post – Vita, Tq. Pathari, Dist. Parbhani, through its Secretary - Shri Shankar s/o. Raghunathrao Pawar, Age. 35 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. Datta Nagar, Jintur Road, Parbhani, Tq.Dist. Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9496 of 2010 Community Aid and Agriculture Sponsorship .. Petitioner Programme, At post – Vita, Tq. Pathari, Dist. Parbhani, through its Secretary - ( 20 ) Shri Shankar s/o. Raghunathrao Pawar, Age. 35 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. Datta Nagar, Jintur Road, Parbhani, Tq.Dist. Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9497 of 2010 Shivshankar Seva-bhavi Sanstha .. Petitioner At post – Pungala, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani, Through its President Shri Bhagwan s/o. Srirangrao Deshmukh, Age. 35 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. At post Pungala, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. ( 21 ) Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9498 of 2010 Late Raosaheb Patil Sevabhavi Sanstha .. Petitioner At post–Pangari, Tq. Jintur, Dist.Parbhani through its President - Shri Laxman s/o. Baburao Budhwant, Age. 33 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. Dwarla Movas. Adarsj Magar. Amdar Colony, Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Director of Education (School Education), M.S., Pune – 1. Mr. S.B. Sontakke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 08.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER – B.R. GAVAI,J.] :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petitions are heard finally. ( 22 ) 2] The petitioners in all these petitions challenge the order dated 4/6/2010 issued by the Under Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and the consequential orders passed by the respondents Education Officers of the Zilla Parishad, thereby informing the petitioners that the State Government has rejected their proposals for opening primary/secondary schools on permanent non-grant-in-aid basis. All the petitioners are registered as Charitable Trusts and had applied to the State Government for permission to open primary/secondary schools in Marathi medium on permanent non-grant-in-aid basis. 3] The facts in brief giving rise to the present petitions are as under : The respondent State Government had issued a Government Resolution dated 28/7/2009, which provides that all the applications for opening primary/secondary or higher secondary schools as the case may be, be treated as cancelled or rejected. The said Government Resolution came to be challenged before Division Bench of this Court in a batch of ( 23 ) Writ Petitions headed by Writ Petition No.345/2010 alongwith other companion matters. The Division Bench vide judgment reported in 2010 (3) All M.R. 538 in the case of Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha Vs/ State of Maharashtra allowed the Petitions, quashed and set aside the Government Resolution. The Court in unequivocal terms held that the right to establish an educational institution of its choice on permanent no grant basis, is a fundamental right guaranteed to all the citizens within the meaning of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The Court specifically rejected the plea of the State Government that the applications for opening such schools could be considered only after the perspective plan was prepared by the State Government. It has been held by this Court that the G.R. dated 28/7/2009 vide which all the proposals were enblock rejected, on the premise that such proposals can be considered only after enforcement of the perspective plan, was not sustainable in law. The Court further directed the State Government to consider the proposals for grant of recognition on their own merits in accordance with law. ( 24 ) 4] It appears that subsequent to the orders passed by this Court,the State issued impugned communication dated 4/6/2010, and on the basis of the said communication respective Education Officers of the concerned Districts issued separate communications to the applicants. The true translation of the communication dated 4/6/2010, which states that the same is issued on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha; reads thus : 1- fn- 16 twu 2009 jksth >kysY;k eaf=eaMG cSBdhr jkT;krhy dk;e foukvuqnku rRokoj ijokuxh fnysY;k baxzth ek/;e oxGrk vU; ek/;ekP;k izkFkfed o ek/;fed ‘kkGkauk vuqnkukoj vk.k.;kpk rlsp dk;e gk ‘kCn oxG.;kpk fu.kZ; ?ks.;kr vkyk vkgs- vkt jksth baxzth ek/;e oxGrk vU; ek/;ekaP;k izkFkfed o ek/;fed ‘kkGkauk ^dk;e* foukvuqnku rRokoj ijokuxh ns.;kps /kksj.k vfLrRokr ukgh- R;keqGs fnukad 29 ,fizy 2008 P;k ifji=dkUo;s dk;e foukvuqnku rRokoj ‘kkGk lq# dj.;kdfjrk ekxfo.;kar vkysys ejkBh ek/;ekP;k izkFkfed ‘kkGk lq# dj.;kdfjrk nk[ky >kysY;k izLrkokauk dk;e foukvuqnku rRokoj ijokuxh nsrk ;s.kkj ukgh o ejkBh ek/;ekP;k izkFkfed ‘kkGk lq# dj.;kdfjrk nk[ky dj.;kar vkysys izLrko izdj.kijRos riklwu (individually examine) ‘kklu Lrjko#u iqUgk ukeatwj dj.;kr ;sr vkgsr- 2- ;kiq<s uohu ‘kkGkauk ijokuxh nsrku Hkkxkph yksdla[;k] lq# vlysY;k ‘kkGk] xzkWl ,ujksyesaV js’kks] f’k{k.A gDd dk;n~;krhy rjrqnh vkfn ckch fopkjkr ?ksmu ‘kkGkaps ek/;efugk; LdqyeWfiax dj.;kpk fu.kZ; ‘kklu Lrjko#u ?ks.;kar vkyk vlwu ;klanHkkZr dk;Zokgh lq# dj.;kar vkyh vkgs- LdqyeWfiaxuqlkj T;k fBdk.kh izkFkfed f’k{k.kkph lqfo/kk miyC/k ukgh v’kk ( 25 ) fBdk.kh ‘kkGk ijokuxh ckcrps uohu /kksj.k fuf’pr >kY;kuarjp ‘kklu Lrjko#u uO;kus izLrko ekxfo.;kar ;srhy- 3- ejkBh ek/;ekP;k ‘kkGk lq# dj.;klkBh nk[ky >kysY;k izLrkokackcr T;k izLrkokaoj nksUgh lferhP;k f’kQkj’kh vkgsr] ,dk lferhph f’kQkjl vkgs rlsp nksUgh lferhph f’kQkjl ukgh rlsp dzkWl OgsjhQhds’kups izkIr vgoky ;k lokZapk fopkj ‘kklu Lrjko#u dj.;kar vkyk vlwu ejkBh ek/;ekph ‘kkGk lq# dj.;kdfjrk nk[ky dj.;kar vkysys loZ izLrko izdj.kijRos riklwu ukeatwj dj.;kar vkys vkgsr@;sr vkgsr- 5] After receipt of the said communication, certain societies approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 7472/2010 and other matters. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 7/9/2010, allowed the petitions with certain directions. The present petitioners who were similarly circumstanced with the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7472/10 and other petitions, which are decided by this Court on 7/9/2010, have approached this Court. 6] The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are similarly circumstanced with the petitioners in the aforesaid Writ Petitions and as such they are also entitled to the same relief as granted by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions. ( 26 ) 7] The Petitions are vehemently opposed by the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is only for deriving the benefits of the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7472/10 and other matters on 7/9/2010, the petitioners have approached this Court. It is submitted that the petitions are filed at a belated stage and the petitioners who were not diligent enough, are not entitled for any equitable relief. 8] The judgment of Division Bench in the case of Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, has not been challenged by the State Government before Apex Court. The position is thus clear that the State Government has accepted the said judgment. In the said judgment, this Court, in unequivocal terms has held that the Government Resolution dated 9/7/2010 which has an effect of rejecting applications for grant of recognition/permission enblock, was not permissible in law. The Court has specifically rejected the contention of the State that unless perspective plan was prepared, the applications for starting Marathi medium schools cannot be ( 27 ) considered. The State contends that the communication dated 4/6/2010 was issued in compliance to the directions issued by this Court in the case of Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha. 9] The perusal of the communication dated 4/6/2010 would reveal that it is exfacie contemptuous in nature and on the face of it appears to have been passed in total disregard to the orders passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha. Perusal of the said communication would reveal that though it is ingeniously drafted and states that the proposals are examined individually, the effect is that again by a blanket order the entire proposals have been rejected. Though the Court had specifically rejected the contention of the State that unless perspective plan was prepared, the proposals cannot be considered, it is again reiterated through the said communication that after the school mapping is done to locate the places where facilities for primary education are not available and after the policy is framed by the State Government, the proposals would be invited by the State Government. At the cost of repetition, we find that the said communication is totally