FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 763/2007 (The National Association for the Welfare of the Physically Handicapped, Nagpur vs. State of Mah. and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Anand Parchure, Adv. for petitioner. Shri A.S.Fulzele, A.G.P. for Respondents CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ DATED : 10 th JUNE, 2008. Heard counsel for the parties. We find no reason to take exception to the opinion formed by the appropriate authority of denying grants to the petitioner for the period between 1st April, 2003 to 13th January, 2004 in the fact situation of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner would, however, contend that the petitioner can be denied grants only in terms of Government Resolution dated 27th January, 2004. According to him, the said Government Resolution had no application to the present case as the approval of the petitioner's institution was not cancelled because of any deficiency, but on account of mishap in the hostel. The Government Resolution dated 27th January, 2004 would be attracted only in case where the approval was withdrawn or suspended on account of deficiencies noticed by the appropriate authority in the institution. We find no merit in this submission. We are in agreement with the stand taken by the respondents which is reinforced from the order dated 17th April, 2003 (Annexure-II, page 16). From the said order, it is more than clear that the approval of the petitioner's institution was suspended and/or withdrawn on account of the deficiencies referred to therein. Inasmuch as, it is noted that the petitioner institution admitted students in breach of the approval condition. Similarly, deficiency was found in respect of the building premises of the institution as well as in the matter of appointment of employees and other matters referred to in the order. It is not as if the approval was withdrawn simplicitor because of mishap in the hostel run by the petitioner institution as is contended before us. In such a case, the argument of the petitioner that G.R. dated 27th January, 2004 has no application is devoid of merits. It was then contended that merely because the school did not have approval during the relevant period cannot be the basis to deny the grant to the school, which was earlier approved and was continuously running during the relevant period. We find no merit even in this submission. The G.R. is very categorical on this aspect. It clearly proceeds on the premise that if there is no approval in respect of any institution covered by the concerned Act, it would be assumed that it was not operating under the said Act, so as to extend benefit of grant-in-aid. Suffice it to observe that as there was no approval in respect of the petitioner's institution between 1st April, 2003 to 13th January, 2004, the question of extending grant-in-aid for the said period to the petitioner's institution does not arise. Hence, this petition fails. The same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit