WP.1351/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1351 OF 2010 Laxmi Education Society & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr. N.H. Seervai, Sr. Adv. with Shyam Mehta, A.G. Kothari i/b M/s Madekar & Co., for the Petitioners. Mr. Nilesh Pawaskar, Special counsel with B.H. Mehta, AGP for the Respondents. ---- CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9TH JULY, 2010. P.C. 1] What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is order dated 17.6.2010 of the Dy. Director of Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, disapproving the proposal of the petitioners to close down two Junior colleges run by petitioners. 1 WP.1351/2010 2] Clause 7.5 of the Secondary School Code 2002 applicable to the Junior colleges run by the petitioners-society provides for an appeal against such a decision to the Director of Education. 3] There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners- society has already filed such appeal before the Director of Education. However, in view of the objection raised by the petitioners about the alleged bias of the concerned officer, the officer concerned has recused himself from the case and therefore, the appeal will be placed for hearing before another officer of equivalent rank. 4] In view of the urgency involved in the matter, we are of the view that the petitioners’ appeal should be heard as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two weeks from today. 5] Mr. Seervai, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the petitioners apprehend appointment of the administrator in view of the communication dated 23.2.2010. 2 WP.1351/2010 6] While disposing of the writ petition with direction to expedite the hearing of the appeal, we also direct that during the pendancy of the appeal, no appointment of the administrator shall be made till disposal of the appeal. 7] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case the decision of the Appellate Authority goes against the petitioners, petitioners may be permitted to revive this petition with liberty to pray for amendment of the petition. 8] Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to revive, in case the decision of the Appellate Authority goes against the petitioners. 9] Since the admission process to the Junior colleges in the State has not yet commenced in view of some pending litigation, we are not called upon to consider Mr. Seeravi’s request for stay of the order of 3 WP.1351/2010 Deputy Director. However, liberty is reserved to either of the parties to pray for appropriate directions in case exigency arises. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 4