(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5345 OF 1997 1. Rashtriya Sah. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ltd., Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, (A Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and also under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960). Through its Chairman, Yeshwantrao s/o. Narayanrao Chawhan, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Chalisgaon, District : Jalgaon. 2. Vinay s/o. Ramrao Deshmukh, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above, Vice-Chairman of Rashtriya Sahakari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ltd., Chalisgaon, District : Jalgaon. 3. Gopalrao s/o. Keshavrao Deshmukh, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above, Secretary of the Rashtriya Sahakari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ltd., Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Madhukar s/o. Ukha Choudhari, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Joint Secretary of the Rashtriya Sahakari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ltd., Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. (2) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Social Welfare, Cultural & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Seva Sahakari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Fule Colony, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Secretary, Wadilal s/o. Parshuram Rathod, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Near Head Post Office, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. The District Social Welfare Officer, Class-I, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Maharashtra State, Pune. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ (3) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY 2010 JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the order dated 18th September 1996, passed by the respondent / State, thereby granting permission to the respondent no.2, to start an Ashram School at village Raj Dehre (Taluka : Chalisgaon, District : Jalgaon). 2. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 had both applied for grant of permission to start Ashram School at village Raj Dehre. By the impugned order, permission was granted in favour of respondent no.2. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 3. Mr. P.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had applied, much earlier in point of time, for grant of permission to start Ashram School at the said village. He submits that the petitioner no.1 is a highly reputed Education Society and running various educational institutes in the concerned area. It is submitted that the petitioner was having requisite infrastructure for starting Ashram School at village Raj Dehre. It is submitted that though (4) the petitioner was having a requisite infrastructure and though the proposal of the petitioner was recommended by the competent authority, the proposal of respondent no.2 came to be sanctioned only on account of political influence. He submits that when there are two competitive claims, the respondents / authorities were obliged to consider both the competitive claims. He further submits that during the pendency of the petition, vide order dated 19th January 1999, the application of the present petitioner, for opening Ashram School in the year 1996-97 at village Raj Dehre, has been rejected. He submits that the said order is also liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2, on the contrary, submits that the respondent no. 2 had also made several applications to the respondents / authorities for grant of permission. He submits that the respondent no.2 also had a requisite infrastructure to start the Ashram School. He denies the allegations regarding political influence. He further submits that the school is running for a period of last 16 years efficiently and, therefore, an interference, at this state, would not be warranted. 5. From the affidavit filed by one Shri J.S. Ghanekar, working as Under Secretary with the State Government, it can be seen that the comparative status of both, the petitioner as well as respondent no.2, appears to be same. Both of them appear to (5) have almost identical facilities. Mr. P.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is right in contending that when two rival claims were there before the respondents / authorities, they ought to have given due consideration to both the proposals. 6. However, it is to be noted that the Ashram School run by respondent no.2 is operating for a period of almost 14 years. From the material placed on record by the respondents, it would appear that the facilities provided by the respondent no.2 are adequate. Any interference, at this stage, in the permission granted in favour of respondent no.2, would seriously prejudice the interest of the students who are already taking education. It is further to be noted that the respondent no.2 has established complete infrastructure for running the said school. 7. However, it is to be noted that the order issued by the respondents / authorities, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner, on 19th January 1999, is a cryptic order without assigning any reasons. It is a settled law, that the authorities while deciding the issues, resulting in civil consequences, are required to give reasoned orders. We, therefore, find that the said order needs to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be re-considered by the respondent no.1 regarding grant of permission to the petitioner for opening an Ashram School. (6) 8. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 19th January 1999, Exhibit Z-12, thereby rejecting application of the petitioner for opening an Ashram School at village Raj Dehre, is quashed and set aside. We direct the respondent State to re-consider the proposal of the petitioner, for opening of Ashram School at village Raj Dehre (Taluka : Chalisgaon, District : Jalgaon), in accordance with law. The decision in the matter shall be taken by the State Government within a period of six months from today, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (ii) However, for the reasons set out herein above, we are not inclined to interfere with the permission granted in favour of respondent no.2 and the petition fails, in so far as challenge to grant of permission to open Ashram School in favour of respondent no.2, is concerned. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5345