{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4638 OF 2009 Amalner Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dhule Road, Amalner Taluka-Amalner, Dist-Jalgaon PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra Through School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Deputy Director of Education Nashik Division, Nashik 3. The Education Officer Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.P.Shah, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr.M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for respondent No.3. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 14th September 2009 PER COURT: 1. This petition was on board on 31.08.2009 and learned {2} counsel for the petitioner had sought an adjournment in order to obtain instructions from the petitioner for withdrawal of the petition. This Court had accordingly adjourned this petition by two weeks. Today, learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner has not instructed the learned counsel to withdraw the petition. 2. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directing the respondents to give the benefit to the petitioner in the lines of the principles embodied in Government Resolution dated 02.08.2004, as the petitioner institute is also similarly placed. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the non salary grant in aid to the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner had submitted a proposal seeking approval to its school known as “Sane Guruji Vidya Mandir”. The said approval was solicited on grant in aid basis. On 21.01.1981, permission was granted for primary school on a permanent non grant basis. According to the petitioner the aforesaid permission came to be granted to the petitioner as the earlier school had been closed down, which school had been conducted by “Lokmanya Shikshan Mandal, Amalner”. According to the petitioner, some time in 1989 a policy decision was taken by the State Government to sanction grants to the recognized primary schools, which were on permanently non grant basis, excepting {3} English medium schools. According to the petitioner, the private schools were to be sanctioned grants in a phased manner. On 07.06.1990, a resolution came to be passed by the Government for providing grants w.e.f. 01.10.1988 in a phased manner. According to the petitioner, on account of natural growth in the strength of the students, permission came to be granted from time to time for opening of new divisions and accordingly 1st to 7th divisions of 5 classes each came to be sanctioned on grant in aid basis. According to the petitioner, there are in all 41 teaching and 2 non teaching staff and 100 % grant is being provided to all the 43 sanctioned posts. According to the petitioner, though 100% grant was being provided, yet from 2003-04, the non salary grant came to be discontinued. A show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2007 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the grant should not be discontinued as the petitioner was not eligible. Hearing before Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik came to be conducted in respect of the show cause notice. According to the petitioner the file has been forwarded to the concerned Department in Mantralaya. On 04.10.2007, hearing came to be conducted in the show cause notice before the Minister also, however no orders have been passed till today. Meanwhile, it appears that the petitioner had preferred writ petition 4440/2008 before this Court claiming for the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 02.08.2004 with an alternate prayer of directing the respondents to decide the pending proceedings. By order date 20.10.2008, this Court {4} disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to decide the pending proposal within 10 weeks and to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, despite lapse of the period of 10 weeks, the respondents have not communicated the said decision to the petitioner. 4. According to us, the relief, which the petitioner has sought for, cannot be granted in the light of the pendency of the said proposal. This Court has already directed that the pending proposal be decided within a particular period. If the proceedings are pending, the petitioner has alternate remedy of enforcing the earlier order passed by the Division Bench. In the light of the aforesaid fact, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition. The petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp4638-09