1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1570 OF 2009 Shri Shaneshwar Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Borgaon (Kolha), Tq-Loha, Dist-Nanded, Through its Secretary, Laxman s/o Pundlikrao Tate, R/o-Pokhari, Tq-Loha, Dist-Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune, 3) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, 4) The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.V.A. Dhakne Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Petition takes exception to the decision of the Education Officer dated 10th October, 2008 rejecting the proposal submitted by the Petitioner for starting Higher Secondary School. 3. We find that three reasons have been recorded in the order. Firstly, necessary infrastructure is lacking , secondly, last three years audit reports are not available and thirdly, there is already existing Higher Secondary School in the locality. 3 4. Insofar as the third ground is concerned, merely because there is already existing School within five K.M.s radius of the proposed School, that alone cannot be the basis to reject the proposal, keeping in mind the principle expounded by the Full Bench of our High Court in the case of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2009 (6) ALL M.R. 215. 5. Insofar as the fact noted in the impugned order that infrastructure is lacking, neither in the order nor in the affidavit filed before us on behalf of the Respondents, details of what mandatory infrastructure is lacking, has been specified. Ordinarily, the Authority ought to indicate the said items specifically, so that the Institution would get the opportunity to remedy the short comings. Even on that count, general statement made in the order, which is impugned before us, cannot be countenanced. 4 6. Insofar as the second ground specified in the order that last three years audit report is not available, the Petitioners have placed on record audited financial statement for all the three years referred to by the Education Officer. In that sense, the said ground was not available for rejection of the proposal. 7. In the circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the impugned decision of the Education Officer and instead, relegate the Petitioners before the Education Officer for reconsideration of the proposal on its own merits afresh, in accordance with law. All questions are left open to be examined by the Education Officer on its own merits. The Education Officer shall consider the proposal expeditiously and in any case finally decide of the the same before the end of March, 2010, so that the Petitioners can start the School from the academic year 2010-2011, if permission is accorded in that behalf. The Competent Authority shall communicate the order to the Petitioner 5 within ONE WEEK from the date of the order. 8. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/FEB10/wp1570.09