1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5333 OF 2008 Kisan Kranti Shikshan Sanstha's Kai. Madhavrao Deshmukh Apang Niwasi Vidyalaya, Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, Through its Secretary, Subhashrao Madhavrao Deshmukh, R/o-Shirpur, Post-Kerwadi, Tq-Palam, Dist-Parbhani. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. P.D. Bachate Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. V.S. Panpatte Advocate for Respondent No.4. Shri. A.M. Gaikwad Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner, under order issued by the State Government dated 30th July, 1997 - Exhibit A, was permitted to start and run four schools under the Scheme mentioned in Government decision dated 9th March, 1990. The said decision is not placed on record. Accordingly, it is contended that the Petitioner started running these schools at various places in different Districts. One of such school run by the Petitioner society was resident school for disabled students at Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, which the Petitioner started from the year 1997-1998 on grant-in-aid basis. According to the State Authorities, the said school was closed from the year 1999-2000 onwards. Appropriate reports from the District 3 Authorities were called and at Commissionerate level the issue was considered and on the proposal made by the Respondent No.5, the State Government under Government Resolution dated 7th August 2008, decided to transfer the permission to run school for disabled students granted in favour of the Petitioner, in favour of Respondent No.5 on certain conditions which are stipulated in the order itself. 3. Learned counsel Shri. Bachate, submits that the said order passed by the State Government under Government Resolution dated 7th August, 2008 is erroneous and suffers from want of compliance of principles of natural justice. The order is passed behind back of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not noticed before the State Government passed such order. The Petitioner is still willing and has capacity to run the school. 4. Learned counsel Shri. Gaikwad for Respondent No.5 submits that after considering the 4 fact that the school was not functioning for last eight years, the State Government adopted a decision in the interest of disabled students, which cannot be now termed as erroneous by the Petitioner. The employees who were working with the Petitioner, had also filed an undertaking that they would be willing to work with Respondent No. 5, if they are absorbed in services and accordingly the employees who were working with the Petitioner school in the year 1997-1998, were absorbed. The counsel submits that now the Respondent No.5 is running that school smoothly and after ten years, the position need not be reversed, merely on the ground that the Petitioner was not heard by the State Government. 5. Shri. V.H. Dighe, learned A.G.P. submits that in the light of the State policy of not to grant permission to new schools run for disabled students, more particularly in view of Government Resolution dated 4th December, 2003 and after considering the report from District Officers and 5 the Commissioner, the State Government issued the impugned Government Resolution purely in the interest of the students who are disabled and deprived to take education at remote places of the concerned Districts. 6. Though we find that the Petitioner was not noticed before the impugned order was passed, we have considered the case in the peculiar facts and the back-ground from which it has emerged. The State Authorities could have at-least heard the Petitioner before passing impugned order. But the fact remains that according to the report received from the State Authorities, the school itself was closed for last eight years. The closure or non functioning of the school could be detrimental to the interest of disabled students for whom Government had framed special scheme and under which certain managements were permitted to run the schools. The ultimate beneficiaries were disabled students and not any of the management which desired to run such school. Probably with 6 this view in mind, the State Authorities called report from District Officers and Commissioner and after considering the issue and proposal and willingness of Respondent No.5, a decision to transfer the permission in favour of Respondent No.5 was taken. It is contended that Respondent No.5 is now running the school by absorbing employees of earlier school. The position is settled. The disabled students are now being imparted education there. In the light of the subsequent developments and settled position, we are not inclined now to unsettle the position by setting aside the Government Resolution impugned herein, merely on the ground that the Petitioner was not heard. In the facts of the case, we would not exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It was argued by the counsel for Respondent No.5 that registration has to be sought for each year and in view of the fact that the Petitioner was refused registration, appeal was 7 preferred in the year 2000, which came to be rejected. Considering all these facts and circumstances of case, we do not find that the Petition requires interference. The Writ Petition is rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp5333.08