1 wp834-10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.834/2010 Bahuudeshiya Bhagini Prasarak Mandal, Banoti, Tq. Soygaon, through its Secretary Vidyadhar Murlidhar Bagul. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents .... Mr.S.B.Talekar,Adv.for petitioner. Mr.T.S.Londhe,AGP for respondents 1 to 4. Mr.S.S.Thombre,Adv.for Respondent no.5. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 21st NOVEMBER ,2011 ORAL ORDER : [PER NALAWADE,J.] 1] Heard. 2 wp834-10.odt 2] The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for cancellation of permission granted to respondent no.5 to start Junior college having classes of 11th and 12th standards. The respondents have filed affidavits in reply. 3] The petitioner is granted permission to open and run 11th standard Junior College at Banoti, Tq. Soygaon, Dist.Aurangabad and the petitioner has been running junior college since 2008-09. It is the case of the petitioner that population of village Banoti is around 6000 and in Tahsil Soygaon, there are other two junior colleges. It is contended that there is only one school having classes upto 10th standard in Banoti and so approximately 20 students per year come out of the school after passing 10th standard examination. It is contended that in view of these circumstances, there is no scope for opening another junior college in Banoti. It is contended that the State Government granted permission to respondent no.5 to open one more junior college under permission granted on 29/8/2009 and this new junior 3 wp834-10.odt college will create unhealthy competition. It is contended that the strength of the students in the junior college of the petitioner would be reduced and the staff of the college of the petitioner will also suffer. 4] Respondent no.5 has contended that the State has considered all the aspects and as there are sufficient students for opening the second junior college, such permission is granted. The respondent no.5 has produced the record in respect of students available in various schools from Soygaon tahsil to show that sufficient number of students will come out of these schools after passing 10th standard examination. The State has also filed affidavit and has contended that all the aspects are considered while granting permission to the second junior college. It is contended that both the permissions are granted with condition that no grant in aid will be given to both the junior colleges. 5] At the time of argument, Advocate for petitioner relied on one Government Resolution dated 11/7/2011. The State Government 4 wp834-10.odt has prepared some criteria for school mapping, preparing master plan for opening new schools. This is only a plan and the office of Education Officer and Deputy Director of Education are expected to prepare map and plan in view of the criteria given by the Government. As per these criteria, it appears that in future, permission will be granted to open new secondary school, if the population of the village is 2000. It appears that the criteria are prepared in respect of primary schools, higher primary schools, and secondary schools. Thus the Government Resolution which came to be issued on 11/7/2011 is also of no help to the petitioner. It is not the case that there was such criteria fixed in the past when the permission was granted to respondent no.5. Further, the respondent no.5 has produced some record to show that sufficient number of students will be available for both the junior colleges. 6] The Advocate of respondent relied on one judgment reported in 2008 (5) Bom.C.R. 277 S.C. [Marutidada Patil Sarvangin Vikas Sanstha V/s Hanuman Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others . In this case also, the old school had taken objection for 5 wp834-10.odt starting of new school in the same area and the Apex Court held that interference in such cases is not possible. It was submitted that the existence of two junior colleges in that area will create healthy competition and that will improve the quality of education. There is force in this submission made for respondent no.5 Thus, the Petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) umg/wp834-10