1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.799 OF 2008 Nimbut Gram Vikas Pratishtan Nimbut. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.R.G.Ketkar i/b. Vijay Patil, for Petitioner. Mrs.M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. For Respondent nos.1 to 5. Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b. S.B.Deshmukh, for Respondent 6. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 18th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.6.2003 by which the State Government cancelled the order in relation to cancellation of the permission granted by the State Government to the respondent no.6 to open a branch of the school at Nimbut, Taluka Baramati, Dist.Pune and 2 the respondent no.6 was also permitted to transfer that school to Village Karanje, Taluka Baramati, Dist. Pune. It is common ground that the school of respondent no.6 at Village Karanja has been started in the year 2003 and it is running. The petitioner claims that it has made an application to the State Government in the year 2000 for opening of school at Village Karanja. So far as the inordinate delay in filing this petition challenging the order dated 18.6.2003 is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner though aware that the respondent no.6 has established the school at Village Karanja, they were under the impression that it was a fresh permission granted to start new school and not a permission for running of a branch school, and therefore, they have not approached this Court in the year 2003. In our opinion, as according to the petitioner it had applied for permission to open a school at the same village, on coming to know that the respondent no.6 has started a school in that village, the petitioner should have made enquiry to find out every thing in relation to the permission granted to the respondent no.6 at that time itself. Therefore, the petitioner should have made inquiry at that juncture when the school of the respondent no.6 actually came up and 3 should have approached the Court at that time only. Now the school of the respondent no.6 is already established and is in existence for a long time, in our opinion, therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to interfere because it will adversely affect not only the interest of the respondent no.6 but also the teachers employed in the school and the students admitted in the school. Therefore, the petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---