1 WP 1127.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1127 OF 2011 Punarvasan Dhanegaon Magasvargiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dhanegaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed & another .... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.G.Sakolkar,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.V.Wagh, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.R.Sonwalkar, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 23/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Mr. V.G.Sakolkar, learned counsel for petitioners submits that since 1986 petitioner – school was running centre for examination. In the last year, the Board did not continue petitioner – school as centre for examination. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1491 of 2010. By an 2 WP 1127.2011 order dated 2/3/2010, Division Bench [ Coram : A.M.Khanwilkar and S.S. Shinde, JJ. ] of this Court passed following order : “ 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the examination is likely to commence from 4th March, 2010, no direction can be issued at this eleventh hour to the Board. However, the Board can be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the future examinations having regard to the infrastructure already established and in place. 3. The petitioner is free to make such representation to the Board which, in turn, shall be decided within four weeks from the date of its presentation. All questions in that behalf are left open, to be decided on its own merits. Petition disposed of on above terms ”. 3. The petitioners filed representation on 7/1/2011 with Board for continuing centre for examination. By communication dated 12/1/2011, said representation was rejected by Board and the order was communicated to petitioners. The petitioners challenge said order. 3 WP 1127.2011 4. Mr. Sonwalkar, learned counsel for Board submits that petitioner – school has 35 students and total strength of students appearing for examination, considering other schools attached to petitioner – school, would come to around 150 students. The learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that examinations are to commence from 1/3/2011, it would not be possible for Board to make any alternate arrangement. The period is so short that it would be highly inconvenient for Board to make any alternate arrangement. 5. In the facts of case, we find that petitioners ought to have made representation much earlier in view of order passed by this Court. The representation is made very recently i.e. on 7/1/2011. The examinations are commencing from 1/3/2011. Considering all these aspects of matter, we are not inclined to interfere in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioners are entitled to file fresh representation for next academic year. If such a representation is filed, the Board would pass appropriate order on its own merits in accordance with law. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 1127.2011