1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.87 OF 2009 Shivraj Education Society .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Shri N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Shri S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent No.4. CORAM: D.D. SINHA AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2010 P.C: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 both had applied for grant of permission to start a junior college in their respective institutions for the academic session 2008-09. It is contended that the District Level Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.4 on the ground that 2 there were already in existence other two institutions, namely Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya and Balwantrao Yadav High School at Vadagaon and similarly if permission is granted to either of these institutions, then they may not get adequate strength of students to run a junior college. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the State Government at a later point of time arbitrarily chosen the case of respondent No.4 and granted permission to run a junior college in favour of respondent No.4 and, therefore, the said decision of the State Government is impugned in the present writ petition. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the reason given by the State Government for grant of permission to run a junior college in favour of respondent No.4 is based on two grounds: (i) that the institution/school run by respondent No.4 is beyond the prohibited distance of 10 kms. as per condition C(1) of the Government Resolution dated 14-5-2008 from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya and Balwantrao Yadav High School at Vadagaon, whereas the school run by the petitioner comes within 4 kms. from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya and within 5 3 kms. from Balwantrao Yadav High School at Vadagaon. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these conclusions arrived at by the respondents are incorrect which are also contrary to the decision taken by the District Level Committee and, therefore, the order of the State Government granting permission to start a junior college in favour of respondent No.4 is bad in law. 3. The learned AGP, on the other hand, supported the action of the State Government and has contended that though the District Level Committee has rejected both the applications submitted by the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 requesting the State Government to grant permission to start a junior college for the academic session 2008-09, however, the order of the District Level Committee shows that the school run by respondent No.4 was beyond the distance of 10 kms. from the institutions, namely, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya and Balwantrao Yadav High School at Vadagaon. It is further contended that the State Government, on verification, found that the school run by respondent No.4 was beyond 10 kms. from the above institutions and, therefore, it does not 4 come within the prohibited distance as contemplated by the Government Resolution dated 14-5-2008, particularly condition C(1) of the said Government Resolution, whereas the school run by the petitioner comes within the said prohibited distance and, therefore, the order granting permission to start a junior college in favour of respondent No.4 is just and proper. 4. Considered the rival contentions. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the school run by respondent No.4 is beyond the prohibited distance, contemplated by the Government Resolution dated 14-5-2008 and, therefore, the order passed by the respondents granting permission to start a junior college in favour of respondent No.4 appears to be just and proper and is also sustainable in law. The grievance of the petitioner, in our view, is misconceived and suffers from lack of merit. As no case is made out for interference in the impugned decision, the writ petition is dismissed. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)