wp6996.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6996 OF 2010 Jai Hanuman Dnyan Prasarak Mandal, Mogha, Tq-Ahmedpur, Dist-Latur, Through its Joint Secretary Shri. Balasaheb s/o Pundlikrao Kadam, R/o-Mogha, Tq-Ahmedpur, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Education, (Secondary & Higher Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune-1, 3) The Dy. Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, 4) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, 5) Shri Sant Dnyaneshwar Bahu-uddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Janwal, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur, Through its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS. wp6996.10 2 ... Shri.P.G. Rodge Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri.C.K. Shinde Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner claims that they are running a school having 5th to 10th standard at village Janwal, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. There are other schools run by Zilla Parishad, according the Petitioner. Respondent No.5 filed a proposal to start a school having 5th to 7th standard. The Petitioner's contention is that in case permission to run a school is granted to Respondent No.5 by the State, the Petitioner's school will be wp6996.10 3 affected and there will be stiff competition and in case the Petitioner does not get required strength of the students, the Petitioner will be required to close down its school. 2. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.5 asked No Objection Certificate from Zilla Parishad which was granted. Thereafter the Deputy Director recommended the proposal to the State. 3. No material is placed before us to ascertain as to whether private institution is required to seek first No Objection Certificate from Zilla Parishad for starting a school, which ultimately is a right of the State Government, as on today. Even otherwise the counsel for the Petitioner admits that the State has not taken any final decision on the proposal of the Respondent No.5, which is pending with the State since the year 2009. wp6996.10 4 4. As on today, we do not find that the Petitioner has any cause of action to raise challenge. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/FEB11/wp6996.10