1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4509 OF 1994. Gram Vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Through its President Bhila S/o Gotu Sonawane Age : 43 Yrs.,, Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Mohadi, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon, .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. District Education Officer (Secondary ), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 2. Dy.Director of Education Nashik Region, Nashik. 3. The State of Maharashtra 4. Jalgaon Zilla Maraatha Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Jalgaon Through its President C/o Nutan Marataha College, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.J.Dixit, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Additional Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 15/06/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - B.R.GAVAI, J. ] 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the decision of the State Govt. to grant permission to the respondent no. 4 to start school at village Pathri, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that there was requirement of school at Pathri and, therefore, at the request of the villagers, the petitioner decided to start school at Pathri and it was accordingly started. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a proposal which was complete in all respect to the respondents – authorities. The respondents – authorities have not granted permission to the petitioner to start school and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Mr. V. J. Dixit, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already started a school at Pathri in anticipation of the permission from the respondents – authorities. It is, therefore, submitted that on account of doctrine of legitimate anticipation, the respondents ought to have granted permission to the petitioner. It is further submitted that proposal of the petitioner was better in comparison to the proposal of respondent no. 4 and as such on merits also, the petitioner is entitled for permission rather than respondent no. 4. 4. As to which proposal for opening a school has to be sanctioned, is within the domain of the executive. Unless it is pointed out that the decision of the authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s proposal and according 3 permission to somebody else is arbitrary, it will not be permissible for this Court to sit in an appeal. No allegations of the malafides can be seen in the petition. Even any person against whom malafides are attributed, has not been joined as party respondent. In that view of the matter, we find that interference is not warranted. 5. In so far as submission of legitimate expectation is concerned, since the petitioner had taken a risk to start school without obtaining proper permission, it must face the consequences. 6. In that view of the matter, No interference is warranted. The present Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4509.94