: 1 : wp.2813.1997 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2813 OF 1997 Datta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .. Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents None for the Petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: NOVEMBER 8, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of 12.3.1997 as well as the order dated 14.6.1995 passed by the Director of Education, Pune. 2. It appears that by his order dated 6.4.1995, the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division had cancelled / withdrawn the recommendation granted to the Vishnupant Patil School run by the petitioner society and therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of Education against the said order. The appeal came to be dismissed by the order dated 14.6.1995 passed by the Director of : 2 : wp.2813.1997 Education and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education on 6.4.1995 came to be upheld. The said order came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.3595 of 1995 and the petition was partly allowed by giving liberty to the petitioner to apply to the Director of Education for revoking the impugned order passed on 14.6.1995. On 12.3.1997, the Director of Education decided the representation submitted by the petitioner and rejected the prayer to continue the recognition of the said school. 3. While granting Rule on 30.6.1997, interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) was granted by this Court. Prayer clause (b) reads as under: “(b) pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner to continue to run their educational institution and, further, direct the respondents to treat the petitioner's school as a recognised school;” 4. There is no doubt that Vishnupant Patil school has been running as a recognised school for the last more than fourteen years, on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court and there is nothing on record to point out that any subsequent order has been passed by the competent authority or any report has been submitted, : 3 : wp.2813.1997 adversely commenting on the performance of the said school. 5. Hence, the interim order deserves to be confirmed. Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 6. No order as to costs. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)