1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2301 OF 2001 Shri Abhay Shrikant Jain ­ PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and others. ­ RESPONDENTS ***** Ms Varsha Kapse, Adv.h/for Ms.Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.KS Patil,AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 served. ­­­­­ CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE : 31st August, 2010. ORAL ORDER (PER: S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) 1) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the Respondent No.2, directing him to grant permission to run the 2 proposed primary school of Dr. Hedgewar Shaikshanik and Samajik Sanstha, Parola, viz. Shri Swami Samarth Primary School, Parola, District Jalgaon. A relief of stay to the order of the State Government, impugned in this petition, is also sought. 3) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is Chairman of Shri Hedgewar Shaikshanik Samajik Sanstha, Parola, District Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as “the institution”) (a trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950). The institution had applied for opening of a primary school, however, the proposal of the institution appears to have been rejected by the respondent no.3. The school, which is sought to be opened by the institution is of Marathi medium. At page 39 of the petition, is a copy of communication issued by the Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, dated 13th October, 2000, whereby it has been communicated that after scrutiny of the proposal 3 submitted by the petitioner­institution for opening of a Marathi medium primary school, it is found that the facility of education is available at the place, where the petitioner­institution seeks to open a school and in the vicinity the Marathi medium schools are functioning and, therefore, possibility of there being unhealthy competition between the institutions cannot be ruled out and, therefore, the Government has decided not to grant permission in favour of petitioner­institution to open Marathi medium primary school. 4) The proposal to open a marathi medium primary school was made for the academic year 1998­1999. The writ petition was before this Court on 5th November, 2009, when this Court having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, granted liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an application for amendment in view of the subsequent developments. Despite this liberty, nothing is 4 placed on record to indicate that CA for amendment was filed earlier. Since no CA seeking amendment to the petition is moved before this court till today, in our view, prayer made by the petitioner has become infructuous and, therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition. 5) In this view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed having become infructuos. However, we grant liberty in favour of the petitioner to apply the concerned authorities afresh, if it deems fit and appropriate. In that eventuality, the proposal/application submitted by the petitioner­ institution shall be scrutinized in accordance with the provisions of law and appropriate decision thereon to be taken. Rule discharged. No costs. 6) At this stage, Advocate appearing on behalf petitioner makes available two envelopes, containing communications addressed to the 5 petitioner by the advocate. These two envelopes are marked by letter “A­1” and “A­2” respectively. Accordingly to learned Counsel for petitioner, despite these communications, the petitioner did not turn up to her. These two envelopes are taken on record and statement made by counsel is also accepted and taken on record. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (S.B.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/