1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5214 OF 2009 Shri Dinesh Chandi Tiwari ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr.A.P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Mukesh Subramaniam for Respondent no.4. Mr.C.K. Thomas i/b. M/s.C.K. Thomas & Associates for Respondent No.4. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 13, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2 The petitioner by this petition which is filed under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is challenging the order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 4.6.2009 whereby the approval 2 which was earlier granted by order dated 12.9.2008 by the Education Officer was cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that this order of cancelling his approval is passed without giving him any hearing and without issuing any notice to him. 3 Respondent No.3 has filed his affidavit dated 6.7.2009. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the respondent no.2 by letter dated 9.3.2009 had given him various directions and in view of the said directions, the approval which was earlier granted was withdrawn. In para 5, it is submitted that this order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4 It appears that there are two groups in the management, one is represented by the Counsel Shri Thomas and the other is represented by Counsel Shri Subramaniam. Both claimed to be lawyers appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 management. Both the 3 Counsel submit that they are representing the authorised management. 5 So far as the dispute between the two groups in the management are concerned, this Court is not concerned with the said issue in this petition since grievance of the petitioner is restricted to hearing not being given to him. Since this fact has been admitted by respondent no.3 in his affidavit in reply, the impugned order, therefore, will have to be set aside. 6 The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Education Officer is, therefore, directed to issue an appropriate notice to the petitioner herein and thereafter, decide the question of grant of approval after giving him opportunity of hearing. 7 The writ petition, accordingly, is allowed. The Education Officer shall decide the question of approval, on merits and in accordance with law. 4 8 All contentions raised by both the parties are kept open. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months. 9 The petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE,J.)