1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.96 OF 2010 Sane Guruji Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Through its President, Dhairyashil s/o Nandkumar Patil, R/o-Nanduri, Tq-Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.S. Chapalgaonkar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. 2 Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The short controversy in this Petition is that the Petitioner society had applied for permission to open higher secondary classes in their existing school. That application was filed on 25th August, 2005. However, no intimation has been received by the society about the status of the said application till today. It is on that premise the Petitioners have approached this Court by way of present Petition to issue direction to Respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate order on the application/ proposal submitted by the Petitioner society dated 25th August, 2005 and to further accord permission to start higher secondary classes to the Petitioner as per the said proposal. 3. Having regard to the provisions in the 3 Secondary School Code, it is not disputed that on the expiry of academic year, the proposal submitted by the institution would lapse and the institution is required to submit fresh proposal before the commencement of new academic year as per the time schedule provided in the Secondary School Code itself. 4. It is common ground that the Petitioner did not avail of the said option after the academic year 2006-2007 or any time thereafter. Realizing this position, counsel for the Petitioner, in all fairness, submits in that case the Petitioner would submit fresh proposal as per the norms prescribed under the Secondary School Code and the authorities be directed to consider the same expeditiously. 5. In our opinion, if the Petitioner submits such proposal, the same will have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law and in particular consistent with the norms prescribed by 4 the Secondary School Code in that behalf. Liberty given to the Petitioner is not an expression of the opinion either way on the merits of the proposal. More over it is not in the nature of permission to the Petitioner to submit the proposal beyond the permissible time. The authorities would be free to decide the proposal on its own merits in accordance with law. 6. The only question that remains to be addressed is about the amount already deposited by the Petitioner while submitting the proposal along with application dated 25th August, 2005. The amount is still lying with the authorities and has not been refunded to the Petitioner so far. More over it is common ground that the Petitioner institution has not been informed about the progress of the said proposal so far. Keeping this in mind, we accede to the request of the Petitioner that the amount already deposited along with the proposal dated 25th August, 2005, be treated as deposit accompanying the new proposal 5 to be filed by the Petitioner hereafter. However, if as per the extant regulation the Petitioner is required to deposit higher amount, then the Petitioner shall make good the deficit along with the proposal application itself. 7. It is needless to observe that the Respondents/ authorities, on receipt of the said proposal, shall process the same in accordance with law and inform the Petitioner about the outcome thereof, within reasonable time. 8. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp96.10