- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3076/2009 Savitribai Phule Mahila Shikshan Sanstha, Hingoli, through its President. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of Education (Secondary and Higher Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. ...Respondents... ..... Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & R.K. DESHPANDE,JJ. - 2 - DATE: 25.06.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hardas, J.): 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondent no.2 – Director of Education (Secondary and Higher Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune, to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of withdrawal of recognition of th school. 3] Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated, thus: The petitioner received the permission some time in 1991 for starting a school from the academic year 1991-92. The petitioner – society started its first division in the year 1991 and the school continued to function upto 1999. In 1999, an order came to be passed, by which the recognition of the school came to be withdrawn. According to the petitioner, the procedure prescribed by law was not followed. The petitioner being, thus, aggrieved by the order withdrawing the recognition of the school, filed an appeal to the Director of Education. According to the petitioner, the said appeal is pending on the file of the Director of Education since 2002. 4] This Court had issued notice to the respondents and the learned AGP had sought time for obtaining necessary instructions. The learned AGP states that for want of instructions, he is unable to state if the appeal filed by the - 3 - petitioner has been decided. 5] In the light of that, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and direct the respondent – Director of Education to decide the appeal, if pending, within four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms. No order as to costs. (R.K. Deshpande,J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c256091