-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4985 OF 2009 Late Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Anr. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents Mr. A.R. Metkari with Mr. R.G. Panchal for the petitioners. Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 21, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner No.1 which is running an educational institution has prayed for an appropriate writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the State Government to provide grant­in­aid in favour of petitioner No.2 from the Academic Year 1996­97. The petitioners have also challenged the decision of the State Government dated 11th August, 2008 by which the representation of the petitioners is rejected. 2. The petitioners had initially filed writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 9677 of 2004. A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated April 25, 2006 came to the conclusion that the issue raised in the petition -2- was in connection with the policy decision of the State Government. The Division Bench disposed of the said petition by permitting the petitioner to file an additional representation to the State Government. The State Government by its decision dated 11th August, 2008 came to the conclusion that as per the Government order dated 10th February, 1989, schools functioning in the tribal area and Kanyaprashala are entitled to receive grant­in­aid from the fourth academic year. It is clearly provided that the said benefit has not to be given to the schools functioning within the limits of slum area. Subsequently the Government has come out with new guidelines in respect of the Schools functioning in the slum area. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking that the grant­in­aid be granted with retrospective effect from 1996­97. In our view, the prayer made by the petitioners to get grant­in­aid with retrospective effect from 96­97 is not sustainable as the Government as per the relevant policy had given such benefits to only those institutions which were in the tribal areas and running exclusively girls school in such area. The petitioner institution does not fall in the said category and, therefore, the grant­in­aid was denied initially for a period of four years but subsequently such grant is released to the institutions like the present petitioners. In our view, the prayer of the petitioners is not sustainable at all as at the relevant time the petitioner institution was not entitled to get 100 per cent grant and as per the Government policy now the petitioner institution is getting 100 per cent grant from the Government. Prayer for getting 100 per cent grant with retrospective effect -3- from the Government is not sustainable. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the writ petition. The same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Notice discharged. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.