1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.3902 of 2006 Shri Vithoji Baburao Mohite & ors. .. Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents Mr.G.S . Godbole petitioners. Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.Vivek Salunke for respondent no.4. Mr.Uday Warunjikar for respondent nos.5 & 9. Mr.Jadhavrao for respondent no.7. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for respondent no.8. ----- CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 20 th February 2008 P.C. : 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, Division Bench of this court consisting of Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice R.S. Mohite has disposed of Writ Petition No.560 of 2004 filed by respondent no.9 herein by passing following order:- “ i) To avoid the delay in expeditious consideration of the representation dated 2nd April 2003 we directed the Petitioner to serve a copy of representation dated 2nd April 2003 upon the Secretary of Education, School Education, State of 2 Maharashtra, Mumbai immediately. ii)The Secretary of Education, School Education, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai is directed to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 2nd April 2003 as expeditiously as possible and inform the decision taken thereon to the Petitioner within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the representation. iii)The Secretary of Education must indicate the reasons in its order deciding the Petitioner's representation dated 2nd April 2003.” 2. Pursuant to this order, the representation of respondent no.9 appears to have been considered and order is passed. That order is dated 29 th April 2006. Our attention is drawn to that order. We find that though the Division Bench has directed the Secretary of Education, State of Maharashtra to consider the representation of respondent no.9 and indicate the reasons, the order dated 29 th April 2006 does not contain any reasons as to why the representation of respondent no.9 found favour with the Secretary of Education. We also notice that vide order dated 8.7.1999, the management of the Walchand Vidyalaya was transferred to respondent no.5 on the 3 basis of Resolution dated 7.4.1994 passed by Gram Panchayat, Kalamb. It is the case of the petitioners that it is a forged resolution. This is seriously disputed by learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 9. At this stage, we do not want to express any opinion on the rival contentions. But, in the circumstances of the case, we feel, it would be in the interest of students, teachers and the institution that the question as to who should manage the school should be decided afresh by the Secretary of Education, State of Maharashtra after giving hearing to the petitioners, Gram Panchayat, Kalamb and to respondent nos.5 and 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, we set aside the impugned order dated 29.4.2006. The order dated 8.7.1999 should not come in the way of the Education Officer in deciding the question as to who should manage the school. He must decide that question afresh after hearing the petitioners, Gram Panchayat, Kalamb and respondent nos.5 and 9 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. For a period of two months, the Block Development Officer, who is presently managing the 4 school, shall continue to manage the school. He shall abide by the final order that will be passed by the Secretary of Education, State Government. Contentions of all the parties are kept open. 3. In view of the above, the writ petition and the civil applications taken out therein are disposed of. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)