Writ petition 8118/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8118/2010 Shri Shaneshwar Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Borgaon (Kolha), Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. (Through its Secretary, Laxman s/o Pundlikrao Tate, Age : 47 years, Occu. Agril, R/o Pokhari, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded.) ...Petitioner. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 The Director of education, Secondary and Higher Secondary, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 4 The Desk Officer, Education department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. ...Respondents. Mr. V.A. Dhakne, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATED : 16 th March,2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V. NIRGUDE, J.): 1. Heard. 2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the writ petition is heard for final disposal. 3 The facts giving rise to filing of this petition are as under. Writ petition 8118/2010 2 The petitioner is a education society of village Borgaon (Kolha) Tq. Loha Dist. Nanded. The petitioner society thought it necessary to establish the Marathi Medium Higher Secondary School, at village Wadepuri. The society submitted a proposal for establishing a new Higher Secondary School at village Wadepuri from academic year, 2008-2009, to the respondent No.3 the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. But the respondents rejected the proposal by their letter dated 10th October, 2008. The reasons cited for rejecting the proposal were as under. 1) Lack of material facilities. 2) Failure of the society to file audit reports of previous three years. 3) Expenses of Higher Secondary School in the vicinity. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 1570/2009 before this Court and on 05/02/2010, this Court ordered to set aside the decision of the respondent No.3 dated 10th October, 2008 and directed the petitioner the appear before respondent No.3 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded for reconsideration of the proposal on its merit afresh. The Court further directed the respondent No.3 to consider the proposal expeditiously and in any case, dispose of the same before March end, 2010. Thereafter, respondent No.3 Education Officer considered the proposal and sent his report to the respondent No.2 the Director of the Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary, Maharashtra State, Pune on 20/03/2010. Even thereafter, the Director of Education and the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Education department, did not take a decision. The petitioner made representations to them on 21/05/2010 and on 04/06/2010. He also pointed out to them that the Writ petition 8118/2010 3 next academic year 2010-2011 had already started. Despite of the representations, the respondents did not pass the required order on the proposal of the petitioner and so the petitioner filed contempt petition No. 204/2010 before this Court. Thereafter, the Desk Officer, Education department respondent No.4 herein, by his order dated 20/07/2010 conveyed to the petitioner that the proposal was rejected mainly because there is lack of favourable recommendations for the proposal by the District and State level committees established by the Government. Only respondent No.3 the Education Officer has submitted his affidavit for opposing the petition. In this affidavit, surprisingly on one hand he said that after the order of this Court in writ petition No. 1570/2009, he considered the proposal of the petitioner and recommended to the State Government that the proposal should be considered favourably because there was sufficient strength of students of higher secondary school in the area. But in the affidavit, he did not state as to whether after the order of this Court in writ petition No. 1570/2009, the proposal of the petitioner for establishing the new school at Wadepuri was sent to the District level committee and thereafter to the State level committee. It is clear that this exercise was not at all undertaken. Without obtaining the recommendations of the above mentioned two committees, respondent No.1 could not have taken decision as contemplated by this Court vide order in the writ petition no. 1570/2009. In complete ignorance of this aspect, respondent No.1 through respondent No.4 it appears, hurriedly conveyed to the petitioner that his proposal was rejected for want of favourable recommendations of the two Writ petition 8118/2010 4 committees referred to the above. It seems, communication dated 20/07/2010 was not in consonance with the letter and spirit of order of this Court in writ petition No. 1570/2009. We are therefore, inclined to partly allow this writ petition by issuing following directions which in our view would suffice the ends of justice. Rule is made absolute in terms of following order. ORDER a) Writ petition is partly allowed. b) Respondent No.1 shall now direct proper scrutiny of the proposal of the petitioner for establishing the new school at village Wadepuri Tq. Loha District Nanded. c) Since proposal is already examined by respondent No.3, the same shall be sent to the District level and State level committees and thereafter respondent No.1 shall take decision on the same. This shall be done forthwith and in any way prior to commencement of the next academic year of 2011-2012. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.] ts k/2011/march11/wp8118.10/ok