1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2433 OF 2010 Yashwant Baliram Patil Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Erandol Dist Jalgaon ..Petitioner Versus 1.The Union Of India Through its Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2.The State Government, Through Its Secretary for Administrative Development Dept. Scheduled Tribe, Mantralaya, Fort Mumbai 3. The Commissioner, Tribal Development, Maharashtra State, Nashik Division, Nasik 4.The Development Officer, Triable Development Department, Yawal, Tq Yawal, Jalgaon ..Respondents ... Shri V.B.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Alok Sharma, ASG for respondent No.1, Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondents 2 to 4. ... CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B.R.GAVAI, J. Dated : November 30, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Chief Justice) :- 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2 2. Heard Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1 and Shri Dighe, learned AGP for respondents 2 to 4. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner was granted permission by the Central Government to run the Ashram School at Ringangaon, Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon by an order dated 28.5.2007 under the Scheme of Grant- in-Aid for setting up of new project of Residential School (Primary) for 100 Scheduled Tribe Students. Said scheme was subsequently revised and renamed as a "Scheme of Grant-in-Aid to Voluntary Organisations Working for the Welfare of Scheduled Tribes" with effect from 1.4.2008 (Exhibit "K" ). 5. In the meantime, the State Government also flouted another scheme and by an order dated 28.9.2006, the State Government granted permission to another institution to start another Ashram School in the same village. The petitioner found that in view of two Ashram Schools in the same village, it was not possible to run the petitioner's Ashram School properly and, therefore, on 15.7.2007, the petitioner submitted a proposal to permit transfer of the petitioner's Ashram School from 3 Ringangaon to Erandol. The proposal was submitted to all the authorities for the purpose of making recommendation to the Central Government for granting such a permission. However, the State Government, by the communication dated 18.6.2009 (Exhibit "J") informed the petitioner that Scheme of the Central Government does not contemplate any such provision for transfer and on that ground alone, proposal of the petitioner came to be rejected. Hence the present Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was permitted to start the Ashram School by the Government of India, through its Ministry of Tribal Affairs and therefore, it is for the Central Government to take a final decision in the matter and the State Government is only supposed to make a recommendation after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, when two Ashram Schools are being run in the same village Ringangaon, no useful purpose will be served by requiring two Ashram Schools to compete with each others which will adversely affect the performance of both the schools. Instead, if the petitioner is permitted to transfer its Ashram School from Ringangaon to Erandol the needy students of other area will get benefit of studying in the Ashram School of the petitioner. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Central Government submitted that the Central Government has no objection to consider the petitioner's proposal on its own merits and the State 4 Government may be directed to consider the proposal properly and thereafter, submit its report to the Central Government. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State authorities submits that since the scheme framed by the Central Government did not provide for any specific provision for transfer of an Ashram School from one place to another, the State Government has taken a view, as communicated by the impugned letter at Exhibit "J". 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it appears to us that merely because the Scheme of the Central Government does not contain an express provision for transfer of the Ashram School from one place to another, it does not mean that there is a prohibition against such a transfer. No useful purpose would be served by requiring the petitioner for closing down its school at Ringangaon and then to seek permission for opening a new Ashram School at Erandol. 10. We are, therefore, of the view that the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner's proposal for transfer of Ashram School from Ringangaon to Erandol on its own merits without being inhibited by absence of any expression provision in the Scheme for such a transfer. 11. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 18.6.2009 (Exhibit "J") is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for permission to transfer the Ashram School from 5 Ringangaon to Erandol on its own merits and after considering the requirement of the people in and around Erandol to have such an Ashram School. 12. Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE B.R.GAVAI, J. ... akl