1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4412 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1101 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.4170 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1103 of 2009 ... Bharatiya Multipurpose Education Prasarak Mandal s Smt.Satan Tripathi Smruti Hindi Vidyalaya ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.C.K.Thomas i/b M/s.C.K.Thomas & Associates for the Petitioner. Mrs.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.A.S.Rao for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:19th November, 2009 P.C.: 1 Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard 2 finally by consent of parties. 2 The dispute in this petition relates to release of grant-in-aid to the Primary School of the Petitioner. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 by Mr.T.M.Dongre, objections to the release of grant-in-aid as claimed by the Petitioners have been mentioned. In so far as, one objection raised, namely failure of the Petitioners to maintain roaster is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners- school is a minority institution, therefore, in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of St.Francis De Sales Education Society v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. 2001(3) Mh.L.J. 261, they are not obliged to maintain any roaster. It is also claimed that their claim that they are 3 minority institution is supported by Certificate dated 23rd July, 2009 issued in their favour by the competent authority of the Government of Maharashtra. So far as other objections are concerned, it is the case of the Petitioners that those objections have also been complied with. 3 On the other hand, it appears to be the case of the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 that so far as minority status of the Petitioners is concerned, they have been conferred minority status only in the year 2009 and therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits of minority institution for the earlier period. In our opinion, these being the question of fact they should really be decided by the Deputy Director of Education. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 4 O R D E R (i)The representative of the Petitioners to appear before the Respondent No.2 on 7th December, 2009 along with a copy of this order and submit his remarks in relation to the objection that have been pointed out in the affidavit of Shri T.M.Dongre dated 14th September, 2009 filed in this petition (ii) The Deputy Director of Education, thereafter, shall grant an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners and consider whether the Petitioner-school is entitled to relase grant-in-aid as claimed by the Petitioners. (iii)The Deputy Director of Education, shall also decide the question as to from what date and year the Petitioners-school is entitled to the benefits of minority 5 institution. If for any year the Deputy Director proposes to make order against the interest of the Petitioners, the Deputy Director shall record reasons for doing so and communicate them to the Petitioners. (iv) The Deputy Director shall complete this exercise as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of six weeks from 7th December, 2009. (v) Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (vi) In view of disposal of the Petitions, Civil Applications are also disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)