mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2009 GURUWARYA DADASAHEB BOWA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, MALEGAON-CAMP .. PETITIONERS Vs. EDUCATION OFFICER (SECONDARY) Z.P. NASIK & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. J. Shekhar i/b M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for the petitioners Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 12/8/2009 P.C. The petitioners’ request to permit it to start a new 11th standard Junior College at Sayane BK, Taluka Malegaon, Nashik has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents by Rajendra P. Patil, Deputy Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik and by Madan Maruti Morve, Desk Officer to Government, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The major reason why the application is rejected appears to be that there is already an existing institution namely Municipal High School and Higher Secondary School, Malegaon, having 11th Standard facility and the distance between the existing School and the proposed school is only 7 Kms. and due to short distance between both the institutions there is likelyhood of unhealthy competition between the two institutions. In this connection reliance is placed on Circular dated 14/5/08. 3. We have read both the affidavits carefully. In the light of Circular dated 14/5/08, if the distance between the proposed school and Municipal High School and Higher Secondary School, Malegaon is only 7 Kms. then the permission is rightly rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to G.R. Dated 23/7/08. She states that by this G. R. 27 schools have been granted permission to start Standard 11 schools though there are other schools in the same vicinity which are situated at a distance of 7 Kms. or less. She states that, therefore, the respondents ought to grant permission to the petitioners. The said G.R. is not annexed to the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents may be directed to consider the present petition of the petitioner along with G.R. Dated 23/7/08 as a representation and a suitable direction be given to the respondents to decide the said representation in accordance with law within stipulated time. 5. Mrs. Thakur, learned AGP states that this G.R. is not applicable to the petitioner’s school because this G.R. is applicable only to those schools where District Level and State Level Committees recommend the school. According to learned AGP both the Committees have rejected the petitioners’ proposal to start new school. We do not want to express any opinion on this aspect because the said G.R. is not the subject matter of this petition. 6. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the 2nd respondent to treat the present writ petition along with the G.R. dated 23/7/08 as representation of the petitioner and consider it in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order by him. Copy of the petition and the G.R. dated 23/7/08 be made available to the 2nd respondent by the petitioner. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the G.R. dated 23/7/08 and the representation may be considered independently and result thereof be communicated to the petitioner. 7. Petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)