1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7943 OF 2008 Shri Vyankatesh Education Society and Ors. ... Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. Mr. N.R.Bubna advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.S.Gokhale, APP for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : JULY 23, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioners are running schools at various places in Kolhapur. The permission to open the schools has been granted to the petitioners on permanent no-grant basis. The case of the petitioners is that several similarly situated institutions were permitted to open the schools on permanent no-grant basis. However, subsequently, they were permitted to run the schools on no-grant basis. According to the petitioners thereafter, all the schools which were permitted to run on no-grant basis were granted benefit of grant in aid from 5th academic year and they are getting 100% grant in aid from 9th year of the permission. The petitioners case further is that the schools started on no-grant basis in the academic year 1999-2000 are getting 100% grant 2 in aid for academic year 2007-2008 whereas they have not received any benefit of grant in aid. 2. The petitioners appear to have requested the respondents on several occasions to look into their grievance and to extend the benefit of grant in aid to them like other such similarly situated educational institutions. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have failed to take any positive action. To the petition, the petitioners have annexed Judgment and Order dated 8th April, 2005 delivered by this court ( R.M.Lodha and R.S.Mohite, JJ) in Writ Petition No. 138 of 2005 and another decision of this court in Writ Petition No.8736 of 2005 (R.M.Lodha and Naresh H. Patil, JJ.) where this court was considering similar fact situation. Reliance is placed on the observation of this court that "for all practical purposes, the recognition of petitioner's school on permanent non-grant basis has to be read and understood as recognition of petitioner's school on non- grant basis.". It is pointed out that this court has also observed that the expression "permanent no grant basis" used in the permission dated 2nd June, 1999 does not mean denial of no grant permanently but subject to consideration of grant-in-aid in accordance with the law and the policy that may be formulated by the State Government on 3 improvement of the State's financial condition and and other relevant circumstances. The petitioners case is that despite these observations, the respondents have not taken necessary steps. Whereas other similarly situated educational institutions have got the benefit of grant in aid so far as the petitioners are concerned, the respondents have adopted a discriminatory approach. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel has reiterated all the contentions raised in the petition and made a serious grievance about the approach of the respondents. 4. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by Pandurang Tukaram Patil, Deputy Education Officer O/o. The Education Officer (Secondary),Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. In the affidavit it is stated that the petitioners themselves have chosen to run their schools on Permanent Non-Grant Basis by giving an undertaking to that effect voluntarily and, therefore, now they cannot make any grievance. The allegations of discrimination are denied and it is stated that as per the policy of Government when the financial position of the State Government improves all the Secondary Schools, which were permitted earlier to run on temporarily unaided basis come on 100% Grant-in-Aid as per 4 formula mentioned in Government Resolution dated11.10.2000. The Government would formulate a Scheme to sanction Grant-in-Aid to the Primary and Secondary Schools, which are granted permission on permanently Non-Grant basis. It is further stated that in Kolhapur district 13 institutions were granted permission on Permanent Non- Grant basis in 1999-2000 because they voluntarily chose to run their schools on that basis and gave undertaking in that behalf. 5. In view of the statements made in the affidavit that in the light of the policy of the Government that when the financial position of the State Government improves, the Government would formulate a scheme to sanction Grant-in-Aid to Primary and Secondary Schools which are granted permissions on permanently Non-Grant basis, it is not possible for us to give any direction as prayed for by the petitioners. However, we find that similar statements are made in the earlier two petitions. Those petitions have been disposed on the basis of the solemn statements made on affidavit, as it is made today. We are informed that only about 13 institutions have now remained to be given the aforesaid benefit of grant in aid. The excuse of the financial position of the State Government being not good, is being offered on every occasion when such petitions are filed. It is 5 therefore necessary for the Government to take stock of the situation afresh. 6. At this stage learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he will file a detailed representation to the State Government setting out his grievances, which we have quoted above in the preceding paragraphs. If such representation is filed, the State Government shall consider it sympathetically, independently and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six weeks from the date of receipt thereof. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. Petition disposed of in afore stated terms. [A.A.Sayed, J.] [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]