(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2115 OF 1994 Shri Tuljabhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (Through its Secretary : Shri Ashok s/o. Tukaram Joshi, Aged : 31 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Shankar Ganj, Dharmabad, Taluka : Biloli, District : Nanded), Degloor, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Director, Women, Child and Handicapped Development, M.S., Pune-1. 3. The Women, Child and Handicapped Development Officer, Nanded. 4. Rashtriya Apang Shikshan Sansthan (Through its Secretary, C/o. Blind School, Opp. : Municipal Council, Shri Kalony Bungalow, Chikhaldhara, District : Amravati. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner, vide the present Writ Petition, seeks a direction against respondent nos.1 to 3, to release grants in aid to the petitioner / Society, since January 1993, so also, seeks stay to the recovery of the amount already paid as grant in aid. 2. The petitioner, vide order dated 18th March 1992, was granted permission to open a school for handicapped i.e. deaf and dumb. Clause 12 of the said order specifically lays down that the petitioner would not be entitled for the grant in aid for initial period of two years. By an order dated 15th July 1992, passed by the Deputy Director (Handicap Division), (3) Women, Child and Handicapped Development Directorate, Maharashtra State, Pune, the grant was sanctioned and three instalments were also paid pursuant thereto. Thereafter, the said issuance of grant was stayed and recovery was also sought to be made from the petitioner. 3. The respondents have filed an affidavit contending that the initial permission is on non-grant basis for a period of two years and the Deputy Director did not have any authority to pass an order of giving grant to the petitioner / Society and, as such, recovery was rightly sought to be made. 4. Mr. S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in view of the order passed by the Deputy Director, the petitioner was entitled for the grant in aid. Similar grant in aid was paid to the respondent no.4 since the very inception, and contends, that discriminatory treatment has been given to the present petitioner. It is also contended by him, that many other institutions were granted such grants, but it is only the petitioner who has been discriminated. He has also submitted that no recovery could have been made of the grant which was already paid. 5. Perusal of the order granting permission is clear. On perusal of the order granting permission, it is manifest that the (4) permission was granted on "no grant basis" for initial period of two years. In view of the same, the Deputy Director did not have any authority or jurisdiction to issue such an order of release of grant in aid in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have clarified in the affidavit in reply, that the said order was wrongly passed. 6. In view of the fact that the initial permission itself was on "no grant basis", the petitioner cannot claim the grant in aid for the said period, as of a right. The order has been erroneously passed by the Deputy Director, however, the State Government has recalled the same. As such, we do not find any merit in the petition. However, as the grant was already released, the same was not attributable to any act on the part of the petitioner and the respondents, on their own volition, had paid the amount. The respondents were, thus, not entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner which was already paid as grant in aid. 7. In the light of the above, we partly allow the petition and quash the action of the respondent State, in so far as it directs recovery of grant in aid from the petitioner which was already paid in the year 1992-93. (5) 8. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2115