1 W.P. 4666/1997 ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4666 OF 1997 Nav Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, Dist. : Nanded through its Secretary – Tejerao Manikrao Biradar, Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, Dist. : Nanded .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Jai Javan Jai Kisan Samajik Shaikshanik Sanstha Kini Tq. Degloor, Dist. : Nanded through its Secretary – Sanjay Laxmanrao Dhanwe Age : Major, R/o : C/o Balaji Patil, Shardanagar, Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 2. Savitribai Niwasi Mati-Mand Vidyalaya, Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded Through its Head Master. 3. The District Social Welfare Officer Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 4. Director of Social Welfare Maharashtra State, Pune Central Building, PMT, Shivajinagar, Pune. 5. The State of Maharashtra 2 W.P. 4666/1997 ( J ) Through the Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.D.Salunke , Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08/07/2010 JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. The petitioner vide the present petition seeks direction for setting aside the order dated 29/3/1997 issued by respondent no. 4 and order dated 1/2/1996 issued by the State Govt. granting permission in favour of respondent no. 1 to run respondent no. 2 – School, so also assails the order dated 31/3/1997 issued by respondent no. 4 allowing grant – in – aid to respondent no. 2. The petitioner further seeks writ against respondent nos. 3 to 5 to consider and grant the proposal of the petitioner for recognition of the school i.e. Shri Saint Dnyaneshwar Nivasi Mati-mand Vidyalaya, Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is a registered public Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act and the Societies Registration Act. The said Trust is run by local persons of the village. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the interest of the students, it had started one school at village Hanegaon in the year 1994 and the said school continued for more than 2 years. As per the relevant Rules 3 W.P. 4666/1997 ( J ) and Regulations, it was entitled for grant of recognition. It had submitted proposal to respondent no. 3 for grant of recognition for running the school for disabled on 27/10/1995 with all required documents. The said proposal was forwarded by respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 4 with its enquiry report. The inspection was made by respondent no. 3 and the said inspection report was also submitted. The State Govt. did not take any decision on the proposal of the petitioner but surprisingly on or about 1/2/1996, the Govt. granted permission to the Respondent no. 1 to run respondent no. 2 – School at village Hanegaon. According to the petitioner, the said order is illegal. No procedure was followed while granting permission to respondent no. 1 and the recognition is granted with retrospective effect. The petitioner further makes a grievance that his case is not considered and kept pending. 3. This Court on 18/11/1998 has passed interim order, which reads thus, : “ Heard Mr. Salunke, Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court heard the parties on 5/11/1997 and directed the respondents to file the affidavit before six weeks. In spite of the said order being passed and notice being served, the respondents have not filed the affidavits. We prima facie find that the permission in favour of the respondent no. 1 has been granted on 1/2/1996, on the basis of the application dated 28/10/1995 with effect from 1/4/1994. It is further required to be stated that the trust was not in existence when the application was made 4 W.P. 4666/1997 ( J ) and the date from which the permission has been granted. The trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act on 22/10/1995 and, therefore, it is an ex facie case of favourable treatment being given to the respondent no. 1 for the reasons best known to the officers of the State Govt. We find from the record that the proposal of petitioner was considered by the Social Welfare Officer. It was scrutinized on physical verification and thereafter the recommendation in favour of the petitioner was made. However, those recommendations were ignored by the State and the permission has been granted in favour of the respondent no. 1. Looking to the interest of the students of the respondent no. 1, we refrain at this stage from issuing an injunction or prohibitory order as against the respondent no. 1, but having found that the petitioner was running the Ashram School and its school was recommended by the authorities of the respondent – State, which have been improperly and illegally ignored by the superior officers of the respondent, it will be appropriate at this stage to direct the respondents to release the grant in favour of the petitioner to the extent of the students which are actually taking education in the said Ashram School, because admittedly the beneficiaries of the school are the students and if they are residing in the Ashram School, the benefit is required to be extended and, therefore, pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, we hereby direct that the respondent no. 3,4 and 5 shall release the grant in favour of the petitioner 5 W.P. 4666/1997 ( J ) on actual verification of the students and the staff and as per the norms which make the said grant admissible to them. The said compliance should be made by the respondent no. 3 to 5 within a period of two months. We make it clear that if the affidavits by the respondents are not filed within a period of three weeks from today, the petition will proceed in the absence of their affidavits for the final disposal. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 are further directed that they should produce the original files in respect of the proposal of the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 with the official endorsements of the respective Officers before this Court ” . 4. The Court while passing the interim orders referred above, has observed that the petitioner was running Ashram School and this school was recommended by the authorities of the respondent, it has been ignored by the superior officers and directed the respondents to release the grant in favour of the petitioner to the extent of the students which are actually taking education in the said Ashram school. The said interim order is in force till this date. 5. Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is successfully running the school in pursuance to the interim orders passed by this Court. The petitioner is also receiving grant – in – aid and it also has the licence up to 2012. He has referred to the recent reports submitted by the authorities of the respondent. The respondents have granted ‘ A ’ grade to the petitioner’s school as recently as on 23/7/2009 and 6 W.P. 4666/1997 ( J ) has also approved the staffing pattern. This shows that the respondents at present are satisfied about the working of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Panpatte, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that the petitioner’s school does not have the required infrastructure nor has got sufficient students and placed his reliance on the report issued in the year 2007. He further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for being given recognition in view of the said inspection report of the authorities submitted in the year 2007. According to him, as there are no basic amenities and infrastructure, no recognition can be granted to the petitioner. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and the documents produced on record. It is a fact that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner is receiving the grants and is also running school. The recent report of the authorities of the respondent, clearly shows that the petitioner has the necessary staff and the infrastructure. The assessment report has been submitted by the authorities of the respondent, wherein they have given ‘ A ’ Grade to the petitioner’s institution. The said assessment report shows that the petitioner confirms to all the norms, it has the necessary infrastructure and the staff. The staffing pattern is also approved by the respondent. 8. In view of the fact that the respondent authorities have found that the petitioner’s institution functioning in order and has given ‘ A ’ grade, we do not see any reason as to why the respondents should with-hold the 7 W.P. 4666/1997 ( J ) grant of permission to the petitioner’s institution. More over, as the petitioner is running the school for more than 14 years and it has got the necessary students as per the report submitted, any adverse orders at this stagewould affect the students. 9. Considering all the above facts, we deem it appropriate to allow the petition to the extent of directing respondent nos. 3 to 5 to sanction the proposal of the petitioner for recognition of Shri Saint Dnyaneshwar Nivasi Mati-Mand Vidyalaya, Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 10. So far as the second prayer of the petitioner is concerned regarding the cancellation of the order granting permission to run respondent no. 2 – school, there is no enough material on record to come to any definite conclusion. More over, respondent’s school is also functioning for more than 14 years. In such circumstances, we do not feel it appropriate to pass any orders in respect of permission in favour of respondent no. 2 is concerned. The authorities would consider the status of respondent no. 2 vis-a-vis its infrastructure and amenities and take appropriate decision. 11. In light of above, Rule is partly made absolute on above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4666.97 8 W.P. 4666/1997 ( J )