1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1800 OF 2009 1. Shri Sant Tukaram Bahuudesshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Sarola (A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950) Through it’s Secretary Nagnath S/o.Pandharinath Warkad Age : 42 years, Occu : Service, R/o. At Post. Sarola, Taluka Ausa, Dist.Latur. 2. Avinash Keshavrao Jadhav, Age-34 years, Occu-Service, R/o.At Post : Sarola, Taluka Ausa, Dist. Latur PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education (Secondary & Higher Secondary) Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Latur. RESPONDENTS Mr.P.M.Shah, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondents. 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 04/09/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner by this petition impugns the communication dated 26/02/2009 cancelling/withdrawing the approval granted to the petitioner as Head Master of the Institution. In the light of the limited challenge raised in this petition, we are inclined to hear this petition finally at this stage. 3. Shri.P.M.Shah, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners urged before us that the impugned order suffers from various defects out of which prominently the two defects are (1. that the statement came to be made by the Minister on the Floor of the Assembly assuring the withdrawal of the approval to the petitioners and consequent thereto the impugned order has been passed. 2. The impugned order expound a total non application of mind to the facts of the case, and 3. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners as the approval granted to the petitioners was in existence practically for 1 year.) The learned AGP on behalf of respondent no.1 to 3 was unable to meet the challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the light of the fact that the approval granted to the petitioners was operating for 3 a period of 1 year, the impugned order could not have been passed withdrawing/cancelling approval earlier granted without either issuing a show cause notice to the petitioners or an opportunity of hearing. In the peculiar facts of the present case, according to us an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioners and to those whom Education Officer considers necessary. 4. In the light of that therefore we are inclined to allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26/02/2009 and remit the matter back to the respondents for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents shall issue a show cause notice intimating to the petitioners the grounds on which the respondents consider it necessary for cancelling/ withdrawing the approval granted to the petitioners. This show cause notice should be given an opportunity to the petitioners to respond to the said charges and thereafter an opportunity of hearing be given to the petitioner and to those whom Education Officer considers necessary before any order adverse to the interest of the petitioners is passed. The entire exercise to be carried out by the respondents within 3 months from today. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp1800-09 4