IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3234 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3234 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3234 OF 2009 Master Yash Sudhir Kawarkhe Patil & ors] .. Petitioners Versus 1. Dhirubhai Ambani DAV School & 6 ors.] .. Respondents Mr. P.K. Hushing for the petitioners. Mr. R.A. Dada, senior counsel i/b M/s.A.S. Dayal & Associates for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for CIDCO. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & D.B. BHOSALE, JJ. DATED: 01ST APRIL, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who are minors and desirous of getting admission in Nursery School. The said school was to be opened and/or started by the respondent No.1. It appears from the record that the respondent No.1 has tried to complete construction of the building, but the photographs which have been produced on record show that the building is still incomplete. Therefore, in order to avoid loss of an academic year to the petitioners, the respondent No.1 have communicated to them that the school cannot be : 2 : opened due to the non availability of the building and further, they have also shown willingness to refund the fees which have been deposited by the parents of the petitioners with the respondent No.1 in anticipation that the school will start in June, 2009 for the academic year 2009-2010. Well in advance and before commencement of the said academic year, the parents of the petitioners have been informed that the school cannot be opened and that they should collect the refund and further that they should seek admission to some other school. The said letter issued by the respondent No.1 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Firstly, we cannot issue mandamus to open a school even though such permission to open a school has been obtained by the respondent No.1. Whether to open a school or not is a decision of the Management of the respondent No.1-school and if the Management has decided not to open the school, we cannot force the Management to do so by issuing mandamus to that effect. 3. What we find is that on the contrary, the respondents have bonafidely communicated to the parents of the petitioners that in order to save their academic year, they should take admission in some other school and have also offered to return back the amount : 3 : deposited by such parents. We are told at bar that out of 279 students who have deposited the fees with the respondent No.1 excepting four students, rest all parents and/or guardians of the minors have taken back the refund amount. Therefore, it is clear that out of the 15 petitioners, many have taken back the refund amount. 4. Taking an overall view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the Writ Petition and it is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [D.B. [D.B. [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] BHOSALE, J.] BHOSALE, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]