1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3598 OF 2009 Vidya Prasarak Mandal ..Petitioner Vs. Joint Director  Higher Education, Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents Smt. Aneeta Kuttikrishnan with Shri Dattatray Adardar, Shri Nitin Pradhan i/b Shri S.D.Khot for the Petitioner Smt M.P.Thakur AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 16th June, 2010 P.C. 1. The above petition has been filed inter alia challenging the circular dated 4-7-2007 and the corrigendum to it dated 17-1-2006 issued by the Respondent No.4. The Petitioner has also challenged the Government Resolution dated 12-3-2007, 16-3-2007 and 21-3-2007 issued by the Tribal Development Department, Government of Maharashtra. 2 The Petitioner seeks a declaration that the said circulars / resolutions are illegal, null and void. The above petition has been filed substantially for the relief that the Petitioner should be refunded the amount qua the examination fees and tuition fees in respect of the backward class candidates who have been admitted in the Petitioner s institution. In the above petition, an affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, in paragraph 6 thereof, it has been mentioned that the Petitioner institution has already been paid an amount of Rs.1,47,07,882/- in May 2009. In the context of the said averment, we had queried the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to what is the outstanding amount now due and payable to the Petitioner. Upon this, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that the Petitioner has not been given the refund for the last three years, which according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is in the region of Rs.1 crores or 3 thereabouts. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner for the present would be satisfied if the said outstanding amount is paid by the Respondents within a particular time frame. The Learned AGP, therefore, had sought time to take instructions in the matter and file an affidavit of a responsible officer of the State Government. Accordingly an affidavit has been filed by Vasant D Rathod, Deputy Secretary to Government, Social Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit is material and is reproduced hereunder: I say that an affidavit dated 23 rd April 2010, gives the entire statement of various amounts payable to the Petitioner Institute. I say that according to this affidavit an amount of Rs.42 lakhs is due and payable to the Petitioner Institute to the year 2008-09 and 2009-10. I say that this amounts is arrived after all the 4 documents of the Petitioner Institute were scrutinized. I say that therefore accordingly to this Respondent, and amount of Rs.42 lakhs is due and payable to the Petitioner Institute. I say that this amount shall be paid to the Petitioner Institute as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months. I say that as far as further amount claimed by the Petitioner is concerned the same shall be paid to the Petitioner after scrutinizing the documents. 2. As can be seen the amount of Rs.42 lakhs has been calculated by the Respondents as being due and payable to the Petitioner for the year 2008-09 and 2009-2010. This amount has been purportedly arrived at after scrutinizing the concerned documents. A statement has been made in the said Affidavit that the said amount would be paid as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months. However in the course of the hearing of the 5 above Petition, the Learned AGP on instructions of the District Social Welfare Officer, Thane, Mr.Dnyandeo B. Borgave, states that though the word preferably has been used the said amount would be paid in any event within a period of four months. The said statement is accordingly accepted. 3. Hence, without going into the challenges as raised by the Petitioner in the above Petition, but by accepting the statement made in the Additional Affidavit dated 15-6-2010 as modified by the statement made by the Learned AGP on instructions, we dispose of the Petition in terms of the said statement. We make it clear that we have not gone into the correctness of the calculations made by the Respondents as also the aspect as to for which period the Respondents are liable to pay. If the Petitioner has any grievance in respect of those aspects, the Petitioner would be free to make a representation to the State Government in that behalf and if such representation is made, we 6 expect the State Government to take appropriate action in that behalf as expeditiously as possible. We also accept the statement made in paragraph 2 that as regards the further amount claimed by the Petitioner, the same would be paid to the Petitioner after scrutinizing the documents. We hope and trust that the said further amount, if any, would also be paid within a reasonable time. We clarify that we have not gone into any of the challenges raises by the Petitioner in the above Petition and have kept the said challenges explicitly open for being agitated in appropriate proceedings. 4. We accordingly dispose of the above Petition in the light of the statement made in the Affidavit as modified on instructions by the Learned AGP. 5. The Petition stands disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)