1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6359 OF 2010 Sangam Seva Bhavi Trust, Sangamner, C/o Sanjivan Hospital, In front of Sangamner College, Pune-Nashik Road, Sangamner, Taluka Sangamner District Ahmednagar, through its President, Dr. Bhanudas Genuji Dere, Age 52 years, Occ. Social service and Medical Practitioner, R/o Sangamner, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmedangar ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Bombay – 32. (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Director of Education, for State of Maharashtra, Pune, District Pune. 3. The Education Officer, Higher Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar. 4. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sangamner, Tal. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 ..... 2 CORAM: R.S. MOHITE & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED: 30th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) 1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, leave granted to delete the respondent No.4 from the petition. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as heard Mr. K.G. Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. By the present petition filed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 41, 45 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for issuance of appropriate writ to quash and st aside the letter/ order/ circular dated 4.6.2010, issued by respondent No.1 and also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant certificate of recognition in favour of petitioner, allowing to run the Junior college on permanent no grant basis at village Gunjalwadi, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 3 4. The petitioner claims to be a registered trust under the Societies Registration Act and Bombay Public Trusts Act. The petitioner contends that, the main objective of the petitioner is to make available the educational facility for the rural areas and backward students. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the managing committee of the petitioner Society passed a resolution for submitting a proposal for permission to start a Junior College affiliated to the Secondary and Higher Secondary Board, Pune. Accordingly, it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner submitted proposal to the respondents on 5.3.2009 for the permission to start Junior College from 11th Standard at village Gunjalwadi, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar for the year 2009-2010. After submission of the said proposal, it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner visited the office of respondents from time to time and made enquiry about the said proposal for permission to start the Junior College as aforesaid. In response, the respondents assured that it would be decided very soon. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents granted permission to 198 colleges in the State of Maharashtra, but the petitioner’s proposal was kept pending. Hence, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4305/2010 before this Court for necessary directions 4 on 14.7.2009. Accordingly, this Court issued directions to the respondents on 6.5.2010 and directed them to decide the petitioner’s proposal in view of the decision passed in Writ Petition No.345 of 2010 (Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.) and directed to take decision on or before 31.5.2010. 6. It is further the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 issued Government Resolution dated 20.7.2009 dealing with the issue of grant / sanction of grant-in-aid to the schools running on permanent no grant-in-aid basis and decided to drop the word “permanently” and decided to grant-in-aid in phases to the schools to which earlier permission was granted on permanently no grant basis. The petitioner submits that, the petitioner institute is neither aggrieved by, nor challenges this part of the said Government Resolution, but while taking this decision, the respondent No.1 decided and resolved to cancel all the proposals pending for decision for opening primary/ secondary and higher secondary schools from Marathi medium of instructions on permanent no grant-in-aid basis. This decision is incorporated in the aforesaid very Government Resolution dated 20.7.2009 at Sr.No.6. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 has decided to cancel or not to decide the proposal of the petitioner 5 without giving any reasons. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Government resolution dated 20.7.2009, some of the institutions filed Writ Petition No.345 of 2010 before this Court, challenging the said decision of the Government. In the said context, the petitioner submits that this Court allowed the said petition and directed the respondent No.1 to consider the said proposal for grant of “recognition” as the petitioner has fundamental right to establish the school on permanently non grant basis. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 again rejected the said proposal though the petitioner fulfils the conditions for recognition. 8. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the aspect that the petitioner has sent a communication/ representation dated 28.6.2010 to the respondents and copy thereof is produced at Exhibit K of the present petition. 9. In pursuance of the said communication/ representation dated 28.6.2010 and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. reported in 2010 (3) Bom.C.R. 429, and guidelines laid down therein, and more particularly guideline No.’h’ in Para 82 thereof, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.6.2010 initially for the purpose of grant of 6 provisional recognition within a period of four months. In case the provisional recognition is not granted to the petitioner, as directed hereinabove, the petitioner is at liberty to approach to this Court for necessary reliefs. With the said liberty, present petition disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.)