1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 616 OF 2006 Shri Shivaji Mofat Education Society Kandhar, Taluka Kandhar, Dist.Nanded, through its' Secretary Shri Gurunathrao s/o Manikrao Kurude, age 70 years, occupation : Social Work, resident of Bahadarpura, Kandhar, Taluka Kandhar, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through it's Secretary, Education Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, Dist. Latur. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, Dist. Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Higher Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Taluka and District : Nanded. .. Respondents ------- Shri R.R. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil, A. G. P. for the Respondents. Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre & M.T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 15th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Smt. Mhatre, J.) 01. The petitioner is an institution, running a Secondary School from 1959. It appears that the petitioner has been receiving grant-in-aid since 1972. A proposal was submitted by the Petitioner on 13.10.1989 to 2 the Respondents, requesting them to grant permission to start a higher secondary school i.e. 11th and 12th standards from June, 1990, by attaching those two standards to the Secondary School. According to the petitioner, it had submitted the proposal along with all the necessary documents. 02. It appears that the petitioner was granted permission to start the two standards i.e. 11th and 12th, constituting the higher secondary school in village Digras, Taluka Kandhar, on 1.7.2003. However, this permission was granted on "permanent no grant" basis. According to the petitioner, several other schools, which have come up in the region after the petitioner was permitted to start a higher secondary school on "permanent no grant" basis, have been granted permission to run the schools on a "no grant" basis. The petitioner, therefore, contends that this amounts to discrimination and it is also entitled to run its higher secondary school on a "no grant" basis. 03. An affidavit has been filed by the State, in which the principal contention is that the petitioner has submitted an undertaking while accepting the condition for running its higher secondary school on a I"permanent no grant" basis. In these circumstances, the respondents contend that the petitioner cannot be permitted to renege from the undertaking submitted by it in the year 2003. 04. Although the learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that no such undertaking was submitted by the petitioner, we are not inclined to 3 enter into that controversy. We had enquired with the learned A.G.P. whether the policy of the State, incorporated in the Govt. Resolution dated 11.10.2000, permitting the secondary schools to run their secondary section on "no grant" basis, although initially they had been issued permission on "permanent no grant" basis, would be applicable to the higher secondary section, as well. The learned A.G.P. informs us that the policy is confined only to the secondary section of the school and had not been extended to the higher secondary section. 05. It is not possible for us to appreciate the contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that the other institutions have been permitted to run their schools on "no grant" basis, although they started functioning after the petitioner's higher secondary school was started. This is because, no details of those institutions have been furnished to us, nor are those institutions before us. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to prefer a fresh application before the Respondents for permission to run the 11th and 12th standards on a "no grant" basis, naming the other institutions, which are similarly situated, and have been granted permission to run their schools on a "no grant" basis. 06. The petitioner shall, therefore, make a fresh application to the Respondents within four weeks from today, and shall also submit to the Respondents, the names of the institutions which have been granted permission to run the schools on "no grant" basis, although they had started functioning after the petitioner's higher secondary school was 4 started. The Respondents shall consider the said application in accordance with the policy prevailing. The Respondents shall also take a note of the petitioner's contention that other institutions have been granted permission to run the schools on a "no grant" basis, although they had started operations after the petitioner's higher secondary school had opened. The Respondents shall decide the application preferred by the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner. 07. The petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute, accordingly. (M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp616.06