- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1050 OF 2008 Deepali Deepak Kanere. .. Petitioner Vs. The Principal & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Pradip Ramchandani for the petitioner. S/Shri J.Reis along with K.V.Tembe for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms Sindha Sreedharan, AGP for the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6. Ms S.M.Modale for the respondent No.4. Shri Shekhar Naphade, senior counsel with Ms Madhavi Nalawade, advocate for the respondent no.7. -- CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SRI A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED : 9TH JULY, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. The petitioner’s grievance relates to the refusal on the part of the respondent-institution to give admission to the second daughter of the petitioner though his first daughter is allowed to take education in the said institution and inspite of the fact that the residential premises of the - 2 - petitioner are situated in the neighbourhood of the school of the respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have admitted the students ignoring the claim of the petitioner’s daughter to the third standard for the Academic Year 2008-2009 in contravention of the order dated 17th August, 2007 passed in the Writ Petition No.1325 of 2007. 2. It is not in dispute that the maximum number of students which could be admitted in a class is 45. The records also clearly reveal that for the Academic Year 2008-2009, the respondent-institution has already admitted 45 students, on account of being promoted from second standard, and there is no admission granted to any outside student. 3. The order dated 17th August, 2007 in Writ Petition No.1325 of 2007 which was filed by the petitioner reads thus :- ". Learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that without prejudice to their rights and contentions including preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and - 3 - without treating this as a precedent, in case of vacancy, if and when arises, they would consider on priority basis the case of the petitioner for admission of her second daughter to the School as her eldest daughter is already studying in the same school. 2. In view of the statement made above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The respondent nos.1 and 2 would abide by their statement." 4. The above order clearly discloses that all other points sought to be raised in the matter were not pressed for by the petitioner while disposing the earlier petition. In the circumstances, only the issue which can be considered in the present petition is as to whether the respondent institution has refused to admit the petitioner’s second daughter in contravention of the said order. Once it is clear that all the students from second standard are promoted to the third standard and on that count the quota of maximum number of students in a class is exhausted by those students who are promoted from - 4 - second standard to third standard, the question of violation of the order dated 17th August, 2007 on account of refusal to admit the petitioner’s second daughter in the respondent institution does not arise at all. The Commissioner’s report also discloses that only 45 students could be accommodated in the classroom meant for third standard. In the circumstances, therefore, we do not find any case having been made out for interference in the matter. The petition is, therefore, rejected. ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J ) ( A.A.SAYED, J )