1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WP No. 913 of 2011 Datta Minority v. State of Maharashtra and ors _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr M.V. Samarth, Adv for petitioner Mr D.M. Kale, AGP for respondents CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 6th September 2011 1. Heard finally. Mr Samarth points that in response to special efforts then made by the Government to introduce primary and secondary schools in areas/localities where poor people reside or slum areas, the petitioner had applied on 12.5.2008 and sought permission for opening new middle school at Zulfukar Nagar slum area in Akola town. It was also recommended by District Level committee. The State Level Committee recored its opinion that secondary schools were available in the area. Because of this proposal was turned down. Similar rejection in other matters was questioned before this Court by other aspirants and consequently the State Government was required to reconsider the issue. However, on 4th June 2010 again mechanically the same order has been passed without recording any reasons. Reliance is 2 placed by learned counsel for petitioner on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dnyanganga Krida Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and ors reported at 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 130, particularly paragraphs 32 and 33 to substantiate his contention. He further points out that in urban areas, as per Government resolution dated 14th May 2008., the population is the only relevant factor and not the distance or number of students. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader points out that there was negative recommendation by State Level Committee and because of that recommendation, State Government found it not necessary to grant the permission. He further states that permission sought for was in the year 2008-09 i.e. almost about three years back. He also points out that in last order dated 4th June 2010, the State Government had indicated a new policy for sanctioning opening of such schools. 3. With the assistance of respective counsel, we have perused the record. 4. The Division Bench judgment of this Court (supra) clearly shows necessity of giving reasons in such matters. The Division Bench has found that the State Government has to prima facie apply its mind and record some reasons either for accepting or then for not agreeing with the reasons of the District/State Level Committee. This requirement is found to be more necessary when recommendations of these two 3 committees are contrary to each other. We find in present facts that recommendation of State Level Committee runs counter to the recommendation of District Level Committee. 5. The Government policy as contained in communication dated 14th May 2008 shows that in municipal council/corporation area where there is population of 7000, one school can be allowed. It also shows that while examining such proposal for starting school in other medium except Marathi medium, the criteria like population and distance are not applicable and need of that area or then impact of school on existing schools are the only relevant factors to be looked into. Here, District Level Committee recommended the proposal of petitioner and its recommendation reveals need also. The State Level Committee has pointed out that in the area concerned, secondary schools were available and, therefore, had not recommended the proposal. The impugned order dated 4th June 2010 passed by the State Government rejects proposal without indicating any reasons. All proposals in which there was one negative recommendation or then both recommendations were in negative, have been rejected. Its later part further shows that the State Government then thought it proper to evolve a new procedure in which need medium-wise and also area-wise and the effect of proposed new school on existing school are indicated to be relevant factors to be enquired into. The said 4 policy, therefore, may apply after 4th June 2010. 6. In present matter, the proposal submitted by petitioner in 2008 in response to public invitation has been rejected erroneously and in violation of law as laid down in Dnyanganga Krida Mandal’s case (supra). In this situation, we quash and set aside the communication dated 4th June 2010 and direct respondent no. 1 to evaluate the recommendations received by it in the background of other material on record. Respondent no. 1 may also hear petitioner while taking such decision. Appropriate decision in this respect should be taken as early as possible and in any case by 31st December 2011. 7. Writ Petition is partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE joshi