1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3829 OF 2009 Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Lodga, through its Secretary & anr. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 3; Mr V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 25th September, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned communication dated 13.4.2009 and the subsequent reminders dated 11.5.2009 and 21.5.2009 calling upon the petitioner school to pay an amount of Rs.6,06,060/- towards the late fees of the students who had appeared for the S.S.C. examination held in the month of March, 2009. The petitioner also prays for issuing a writ for declaration of the result of the students. This relief no longer survives for consideration in the light of the ad interim directions by which the respondents were directed to declare the result of those students. 2 2. It appears that the last date for submission of the forms for the 10th standard examination was 10.10.2008, while the last date with late fees was 20.10.2008. According to the petitioners, the forms of 173 students came to be submitted on 10.10.2008, while the forms of 21 students with late fees came to be submitted on 20.10.2008. Since the results of the students of the petitioner school were withheld, the petitioners have filed the present petition. It appears that the petitioner had submitted forms of 80 students in excess of the sanctioned strength of the students. The respondents accordingly had demanded the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,06,060/- as late fees for accepting the forms of the 80- students who were in excess. 3. By an ad interim order we had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in this Court and on such deposit being made we had directed the respondents to declare the result of the aforesaid students. We are informed that the result of the said students has been declared. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner institution had submitted forms of 80 students in excess of the sanctioned strength of the students. According to the petitioner this was done by the Head Mistress of the school against whom Departmental Enquiry had been conducted and necessary disciplinary action has also been taken. it appears that the Government had permitted these students to appear for the examination by its order dated 3.3.2009 and accordingly the respondents had issued the hall tickets to those students on 4.3.2009 and had permitted them to appear for the examination scheduled to commence from 5.3.2009. According to the respondents, the forms together with the requisite fees and the late fees had been received by the respondents by a courier and on noticing the excess forms, the excess forms had been returned back to the petitioner. Since the Government had permitted these students to appear 3 for the examination, the hall tickets had been issued and consequently the respondents have levied the fine/late fees for permitting these students to appear for the examination. 5. Mr V.D. Gunale, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that the Government had granted permission to the students to appear for the examination subject to the disciplinary action which may be taken against the concerned Head Mistress and accordingly disciplinary action has been taken against the concerned Head Mistress. It is also urged before us that the respondents have not disclosed as to how the quantum of late fees of Rs.6,06,060/- has been arrived at. It is stated that since inadvertently forms in excess of the sanctioned strength had been submitted, the respondents are not justified in levying the aforesaid charges. Mr V.R. Sonwalkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has invited our attention to the averments made in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents. In the affidavit in reply the respondents have pointed out that for the academic year 2007-08 the petitioner institute had also submitted forms in excess of its sanctioned strength but at that time no late fees had been imposed. For the present academic year also the petitioner institute had submitted forms in excess. It is also stated before us that in the light of the necessary Rules permitting the imposition of the late fees, the aforesaid action has been imposed. Undisputedly the petitioner institute has submitted forms in excess of its sanctioned strength. The petitioner institute is a recalcitrant institute as on an earlier occasion also the petitioner institute had submitted forms in excess of its sanctioned strength. It was only on account of the intervention of the State Government that the 80 students were permitted to appear for the examination. The respondents have charged the late fees from the last date till the Government granted permission. We cannot fault the action of the respondents in imposing the aforesaid late fees. We, therefore, find that no case is made out for interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and consequently we dismiss the petition, which 4 is sans merit, with no order as to costs. The respondents have filed Civil Application No.7296 of 2009 seeking to withdraw an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners. We see no impediment whatsoever in permitting the respondents to withdraw the said amount. Accordingly this Civil Application is allowed. 6. Resultantly, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Application is allowed and the applicant/original respondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp3829.09