(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6004 OF 2010 Ambadas s/o. Shankarrao Pisal. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and 7 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. B.S. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 5. Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for respondent no.6. Mr. S.D. Kotkar, Advocate, for respondent no.7. Mr. D.D. Pokharkar and Mr. A.S. Amle, Advocates, for respondent no.8. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. The petitioner is seeking direction to the Commissioner of Sugar, Pune, to restrict / curtail the powers being exercised by the official liquidator, respondent no.6, who is allegedly interfering in its management and limit himself only to sugar factory for which he has been appointed as official liquidator. 2. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is neither office bearer of the Karkhana, or the Trust, however, since his appointment as Liquidator, he is interfering in the management of the school being run by the institution. 3. An affidavit in reply is presented by Shri Bhausaheb s/o. Sitaram Sonavane, presently working as Deputy Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the Head Master of the school is submitting the regular pay bills to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, under his (3) signature and the same are being processed and the regular salary of the teachers is also being disbursed. It is also stated in the affidavit in reply, that so far as another account relating to non-salary grant, payment of scholarships and expenditure of midday meal scheme, is concerned, the said account is being operated by the Liquidator and the Head Master of the concerned school. The Education Department has not received any complaint regarding non-receipt of payments by the beneficiaries. 4. In view of the statements made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit in reply, presented by the Deputy Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, we do not find any necessity to cause interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6004