1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3276 OF 1997. 1. Mahatma Fule Shikshan Vikas Mandal, Amalner, Dist.Jalgaon, (A registered Public Trust through its President, Arun S/o Nimbaji Mali, Age 56 years, Occ.Principal. 2. Kishor S/o Tarachand Jagdeo, Age 35 years, Occ.Lecturer and Secretary of Mahatma Fule Shikshan Vikas Mandal, Amalner. Both R/o Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharahstra. through Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 3. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.R.Barlinge, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... 2 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 09.07.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.6.1993, passed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of permission to start and run Secondary School. 2. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for starting the Secondary School at village Takarkhede on 15.10.1991 and 28.10.1992 but the same was not being considered on the ground that the village Takarkhede was not in the Master Plan. According to the petitioner, there was typographical mistake and instead of village Takarkhede, village Sakarkhede was mentioned in the Master Plan. In fact, there is no village named Sakarkhede. The petitioner had brought to the 3 notice of the authorities and necessary correction was made but still on 2.6.1993, the Education Officer rejected the application of the petitioner. During pendency of the present petition, Respondent No.4 has been granted permission to run Secondary School at village Takarkhede vide order dated 10.10.1997. 3. During pendency of the present petition, this Court vide order dated 18.2.2008, had directed the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to carry out the inspection of the School run by the present petitioner and the Respondent No.4, for the purpose of ascertaining the infrastructure, amenities, staff etc. 4. The inspection report has been made available by learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader. On perusal of the inspection report it appears that the present Respondent No.4 has necessary infrastructure and is running the said School. In view of the fact that the Respondent NO.4 has been granted permission to run the School and is running the School for more than 13 years, so 4 also the inspection report shows that it satisfies all the norms, we are not inclined to interfere with the order granting permission to the Respondent No.4 to run the School. 5. As far as present petitioner is concerned, the report shows that facilities are lacking to some extent. However, on perusal of the impugned order it is clear that while rejecting the application of the petitioner, the Respondent authorities had not given any reasons. The reasons are lifeline of any administrative or quasi judicial decision and as the said order is bereft of any reason, the same is bad in law. The order does not show any application of mind by the authorities. In view of the same, we set aside the impugned order dated 2.6.1993, passed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and direct the Respondents-authorities to consider the application of the petitioner afresh uninfluenced by the fact that the petitioner is running the School and the inspection report submitted in this petition. 5 6. The State Government is directed to decide the application of the petitioner within a period of three(3) months from today after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule made absolute on above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp327697