1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4664 OF 2010 Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Umara, Tq. Loha, Dist.Nanded, Through its Secretary - Swapnil Manohar Patil. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharshtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.VD Salunke,Advocate for Petitioner; Mrs.AV Gondhalekar,AGP for Resp.Nos. 1 to 3; Mr.PB Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ----- CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE : 23rd September, 2010. COURT’S ORDER (PER:-B.R.GAVAI,J.) 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Learned Counsel waive notice for respective respondents. 2) By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the action of respondent/State, thereby permitting the Respondent No.4 – College to transfer its junior college from Malkavata, Tq. Mukhed District 2 Nanded to village Martala Tq. Loha District Nanded. 3) It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner-society has been applying to the concerned authorities right from the academic year 1987-1988 to 2008-2009, seeking permission to open and run a junior college at village Martala, however, the same has not been considered and on extraneous reasons, the permission has been granted in favour of Respondent No.4-college, to transfer and run a junior college from Malkavata to village Martala. 4) Since the petitioner-society has been applying the concerned authorities for almost more than twenty years for grant of permission to open and run a junior college, there should be at least legitimate expectation from the Government that the representations/proposal of the petitioner-society are considered on its own merits. We do not say that the State was bound to grant permission in favour of petitioner-society. However, since the petitioner-society has been persistently applying and requesting the authorities concerned to grant permission to open and run a junior college, it was at least expected on the part of the concerned governmental authorities to decide the 3 application/representation made by the petitioner-society in this regard on its own merits in accordance with law. We further find that the action of the respondent no.1 in directly according permission for transfer of a junior college in favour of respondent no.4- college, that too without considering the claim of the petitioner-society, could not be sustainable in law. 5) Reliance in this respect could be placed on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, delivered in Writ Petition No.3947/200 dated 11th October, 2001. We find that the facts and issues raised in that petition are almost identical to the facts set out in the present petition. However, since the junior college, in question has already been shifted to village Martala, we do not propose to pass any order that may disturb the educational career of the students for the present academic year. 6) In that view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of the petition by following directions :- (i) The permission granted by the Government in favour of Respondent No.4-college for transferring the junior college, shall be operative till the end of academic 4 year 2010-2011; (ii) The Respondent No.1-State shall consider the claim of petitioner-society along with that of Respondent No.4, on its own merits and pass a reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and Respondent No.4. (iii) The State shall complete this exercise prior to 31st March, 2011. 7) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/