1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3373 of 2010 Presentation Convent School Arpana Educational Trust ....Petitioners Vs. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Sanjay Londhe i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & co. for the petitioner. Mr. Naushad Engineer i/b. IC Legal for respondent no.1. Mr. G.S.Hegde, advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. G.K. Tripathi, advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- MAY 07, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner Trust has been established by the Respondent No.3 Society for the purpose of running the Petitioner No. 1 School on the land allotted to the Respondent No. 3 by the CIDCO. Thereafter, the Petitioner applied to the State Government and obtained NOC of the State Government which was pre- condition for submitting proposal to the Respondent Board for granting 2 affiliation for starting IX th and X th standard classes. The Board, however, keeping in mind its policy and extant Regulations declined to entertain the proposal of the Petitioner on the sole ground that the Petitioner neither owns the land on which the school is to be conducted nor possesses the said land as lessee. 3. Since the Petitioner No. 1 Trust is the creation of Respondent No.3 as a special vehicle to run the proposed school, on the submissions made across the bar, we thought it appropriate to issue notice to CIDCO who had allotted the land to Respondent No. 3 to ascertain as to whether it was possible to transfer the land in the name of the Petitioner or to permit Respondent No. 3 to lease out the said land to the Petitioner No. 1 on complying with requisite formalities. Counsel appearing for CIDCO on instructions states that as per the policy of the CIDCO, it is not open to the CIDCO to either permit transfer of land in favour of Petitioner or to allow the Respondent No. 3 to grant the said land on lease to the Petitioner. In such a situation, the only option available to the Petitioners is to consider as to whether the Respondent No. 3 itself can take up the cause of running the school instead of permitting the Petitioners to do so. However, for that purpose the Respondent No. 3 will have to obtain N.O.C. from the State Government and then submit its proposal to the Board for affiliation. 3 4. In deference to the observations made by the Court, the Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states on instructions that the Respondent No. 3 may explore that possibility and for that purpose in the first place make application to the State Government forthwith. If such application is filed by the Respondent No. 3 for grant of no objection certificate for running the proposed classes in the school, we hope and trust that the Secretary of the School Education and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra would consider the said request expeditiously keeping in mind the fact that entire infrastructure is in place and even the Board is inclined to consider the proposal for affiliation of the said school. If such NOC was to be granted by the State Government only then the Respondent No. 3 would be able to pursue the Board to consider the proposal expeditiously before the commencement of the next academic year 2010-2011 from June 2010. 5. The Counsel appearing for the Board on instructions submits that as a special case in the peculiar facts of the present case, the Board may consider the proposal to be submitted by the Respondent No. 3 on its own merits in accordance with law and subject to compliance of all the guidelines and mandatory formalities and requirements, as expeditiously as possible. 4 6. To facilitate the Respondent No. 3 to pursue the proposal so that the Board would accord necessary affiliation before the next academic year as mentioned earlier, we hope and trust that the State Government would consider the representation of the Respondent No. 3 for giving no objection certificate for starting subject classes in the school within two weeks from the date of presentation of proposal for no objection by the Respondent No.3. Respondent No. 3 shall however submit such proposal on or before 14th May, 2010. 7. Petition is accordingly allowed to be withdrawn with liberty on the above terms as prayed. All questions are left open. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)