1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1608 OF 2006 1. Babasaheb s/o Govindsingh Bayas, Age: 40 years, Occ: Service, R/o.Rajashri Shahu Nagar, Ambad Road, Jalna. 2. Subhash s/o Hiraman Ragde, Age: 44 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o. Near Water Tank, Indewadi, Ambad Road, Jalna. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, 124, C Wing, Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai-32. 3. The Director of Education, Research and Training Council, Pune-30. 4. The Education Officer, (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Jalna. 5. Dnyanjyot Primary School, Yogeshnagar, Jalna, Through its Head Master. .. Respondents 2 ... Mr. D.M. Jamakwar Advocate for petitioners. (Absent). Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. S.K. Tambe,A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT : None appears for the petitioners. 2. The relief claimed in this petition essentially to issue direction to the respondents, in particular, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide the Mid Day Meal Scheme to respondent No. 5 School. 3. The challenge in the petition is that the scheme as formulated by the Government excludes its application to the schools administered on non grant basis. It is not in dispute that 3 respondent No. 5 is a non grant school. As per the extant policy, the scheme cannot be applied to such a school. It being the policy, it would involve financial implication for the State, coupled with the fact that school was granted permission on clear understanding that it will be a non grant school which means that no schemes or facilities provided by the Government to the grant in aid schools would be available to such a school. It is not open to such a school to now insist for extending such facility under the scheme framed by the Government. 4. In the circumstances, in our opinion, no interference is warranted in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction in the fact situation of the case. Petition is dismissed. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/JAN10/wp1608.06