1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WP NO.3777 of 2008. Buldana Zilla Press Council through its Secretary ..vs.. The State of Mah. and ors. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: D.D.SINHA and A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATE : 6th March, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.A.S.Kilor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Bodade, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 4. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is against the impugned order dated 25/7/2008 passed by the State Government, whereby the school originally run by respondent no.6 came to be transferred to respondent no.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the school in question was derecognized way back in the year 1990. However, in view of the Government Resolution dated 1/8/2007 the impugned order 2 came to be passed. It is contended that while transferring the school in question, it was necessary for the State Government to consider the proposals of the other Institutions including the petitioner and it was incumbent on the State Government to select the institution on merits to whom the school in question was required to be transferred. It is contended that the action of the State Government is malafide and inconsistent with the procedure which was required to be followed by the State Government. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that while issuing the impugned order of transfer, the State Government, in fact, has considered the inter se merit of the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 to whom the school is transferred. It is contended that respondent no.5 is a institution, which is 14 years old and has a better experience in the field of imparting education than the petitioner, who has only ten years experience in imparting education. Similarly, respondent no.5 – Institution has experience of running of six different institutions/colleges whereas the petitioner has 3 experience of running only three institutions. Moreover, respondent no.5 is financially more sound than the petitioner. The learned Additional Government Pleader, therefore, has contended that impugned of transfer is passed after considering the merits of the matter and therefore, same is neither malafide nor inconsistent with the procedure applicable in this regard. 4. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the instant case, it appears that the State Government after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that it will be proper to transfer the school in question to respondent no.5. The decision appears to be taken after considering the inter se merits between the petitioner and respondent no.5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing any indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 4