1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 1369/2011. Nirmala Adivasi Shikshan Sanstha and another -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 30, 2011. Heard finally by consent of Shri P.N. Shende, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri Kale, learned A.G.P. for respondents. Rule, returnable forthwith. Prayer in this petition is, to quash and set aside the communication dated 20.11.2010, sent by respondent no.1 refusing to grant approval to the request of petitioners to transfer the school from Mouza Bothli (Gond) to Bothli (Kinhala). 2 Shri Shende, learned counsel for petitioners points out that it is not a request for transfer as such and the original permission granted is for Bothli (Kinhala). He points out that government itself has accepted on 30.09.1997 that said village is also known as Bothli (Thane), Bothli (Gond) and Bothli (Kinhala). In this situation, he has invited attention to the order dated 25.07.2005 in Writ Petition No. 1434/2005, where this Court has found that petitioners had not opened a school at an un- sanctioned place and also has noted that village Bothli is known as Bothli (Thane), Bothli (Gond) and Bothli (Kinhala). Shri Kale, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondents, has relied upon the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer on 30.04.2008. Perusal of that report reveals that as per revenue record there is no village known as Bothli (Gond) in Umred Tahsil. Earlier paragraph of that report reveals that the village named 'Bothli' was on southern side of Butobori-Umred at a distance of approximately 2 kms., from village Thane. It is also noted that the petitioner 3 Sanstha started its school on field survey no.157 of village Bothli. Village Kinhala (Deshpande) was situated at a distance of about 2 kms., from Bothli and it was sub-merged in Lower Wana Project. The villagers of said village were rehabilitated in the year 1996-97. The position above clearly shows that though named differently the place is the same. In Writ Petition No. 1134/2010 filed by present petitioners, while delivering judgment on 11.06.2010, this Court has noted the contention of Government that Government Authorities could not locate Bothli (Gond) and said village was not in existence. The Division Bench has noted that when petitioners refer to Bothli (Kinhala), it was referring to village which is also known as Bothli (Gond), though said name does not appear in revenue records. At that time, this Court has noted readiness and willingness of petitioners to transfer the school to Bothli (Kinhala). Learned A.G.P. has relied upon Clause 3.42(A) of the Code governing Ashram School to urge that necessary documents have not been supplied and 4 therefore, the permission could not be granted. It is apparent that inspite of earlier orders of this Court, unnecessarily because of mention of place as Bothli (Gond) by petitioners, the revenue authorities have obstructed the consideration of the proposal of petitioners. According to petitioners, other documents are already supplied by them to respondent no.1 and communication of Desk Officer about absence thereof is incorrect. Learned A.G.P. is disputing this. We do not wish to go into this controversy. We direct petitioners to supply one more set of documents within three weeks by R.P.A.D. to respondent no.1. After receipt of the same, respondent no.1 shall proceed with consideration of the proposal on merits, ignoring the confusion about name of village and pass appropriate orders within further period of four weeks thereafter. Writ Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the communication dated 27.01.2010 refusing approval to Class-IV employees is hereby quashed and set aside. After consideration of above 5 mentioned proposal within a period of four weeks, respondent no.3 shall reconsider the said proposal within further period of six weeks. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd