1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5158/2010 [Kranti-Jyoti Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Mandal .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 16, 2011. Heard Advocate Mrs. S.N. Deshpande for the petitioner, AGP Shri A.S. Sonare for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Advocate Shri M.I. Mourya for respondent no.4. Advocate Mrs. Deshpande for the petitioner points out that the recognized hostel run at Gadchiroli was required to be discontinued and hence Government of Maharashtra, as per its policy, sanctioned it to the present petitioner on 31.8.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner commenced that hostel at Yavatmal and by impugned order dated 8.9.2010, the same has been cancelled. She contends that students using the facility since 2009 are still there. Attention 2 is also invited to order to show that on 19.11.2010 ten new societies have been permitted hostels for the year 2010-2011. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner thus cancellation of permission/approval in favour of the petitioner is a high-handed and arbitrary. Learned AGP by filing reply has urged that decision taken by the Government in accordance with the law. He further points out that permissions granted for the year 2010-2011 do not include the hostel which was closed at Gadchiroli. After hearing respective counsel, we find that only to avoid inconvenience to students and to safeguard their education, hostel closed at Gadchiroli was handed over to the present petitioner to start it at Yavatmal. Accordingly, the hostel was started at Yavatmal. The permission, no doubt, mentions that it was only for one year 2009-2010 but then the fact that hostel had started functioning is not in dispute. The impugned order dated 8.9.2010 does not assign any reason for its discontinuation. Almost on same lines as that of order dated 31.8.2009, ten new societies have been allotted hostels for the year 2010-2011 vide order dated 19.11.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that students admitted to its hostel at Yavatmal are still continuing and are taking education. 3 This court had already granted interim relief to the petitioner on 22.10.2010 and that interim relief still continues. In the circumstances, we feel that interest of justice would be met by directing respondent no.1 to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, pass appropriate order in the matter. The petitioner shall report to respondent no. 1 on 18th July, 2011 and file appropriate reply pointing out steps taken by it after starting hostel and respondent no.1 shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law as early as possible and in any case by 30th September, 2011. The petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande