WP 3076/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3076 /2011 Vishwas Raghunath Thombre u/g Raghunath Ramji Thombare & another V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Smt.Madhaveshwari S. Mhase, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri K.D. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent nos.3 to 5. Shri R.V. Gore, Advocate for respondent no.6. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 19.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petition has been filed for direction to start the construction of the new building for the school near the old building instead of Gut No.210. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been categorically stated that the building is being constructed in Gut No.210, which was owned by Sheku Devaji Khamat. It has been categorically WP 3076/11 2 stated that the said person was present in th meeting of the Village Education Committee and has offered to give his land in donation for construction of the school building. It has further been stated that the Village Education Committee has unanimously resolved to construct the Wasti Shala in Gut No.210 owned by Sheku Devaji Khamat, who is donating the land. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Zilla Parishad also, it has been categorically stated that the funds have been received from the Central Government for construction of the building only at Devachi Wadi. It has been stated that it was found necessary to construct the school only at Devachi Wadi. When the Village Education Committee consisting of all the villagers has unanimously resolved to select a particular place, merely because the other rival group in the village wants the school to be at another place, cannot be a ground to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction WP 3076/11 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is rejected. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 19.09.2011 ndk/c199116