{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1278 OF 1994 1. Al-Farooq Talimi Society Udgir (Through its President) 2. Gulshane Atfal Urdu Primary School, Udgir (Through its Head Mistress) PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The Zilla Parishad, Latur Through its Education Officer (Primary) 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad 4. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Education & Employment Department Mantralay, Mumbai 32 RESPONDENTS ....... Smt.S.P.Ghogre h/f Mr.A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners Mrs.Asha Rasal, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.2 to 4. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 22nd July 2009 {2} ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. By the present petition, under Article 226 r/w Articles 14, 30 and 45 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.02.1994 (Exhibit-J) passed by respondent No.1. 2. Rule and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) was granted in this petition on 05.07.1994. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The facts which gave rise to file the present petition can be summarized as follows - Petitioners have started Urdu medium school in the year 1975-76 at Udgir and from the year 1979-80, the same started receiving grant in aid from the respondents. As per the practice, as was followed at that time in the Marathwada Region, the petitioners have started three branches of its schools at various places in Udgir town itself in the year 1982-83. In the same year, i.e. since inception, the said branches started receiving grant in aid including building grant from the respondents. At the material time, it is alleged, the population of Udgir town was about 75000 out of which 30000 was from Muslim community, whose language was and is Urdu. Kids from Muslim community were prosecuting {3} education in Urdu medium schools and the petitioners have started the branches at various places with a view to cater education to the Urdu speaking pupils in the town. It appears that the State Government, vide resolution dated 20.07.1990, decided not to give permission to branches of schools or starting of the branches. As it was noticed that under the guise of branches the institutes were opening altogether new schools. It appears that pursuant to the GR dated 20.07.1990, directions were given to authorities to close down the branches as these were branded as unauthorized schools. The petitioners were also served with the said directions vide communication dated 03.10.1991 (Exhibit-G). Being aggrieved by the said communication / order passed by Education Officer, Zilla Parishad the management has approached this Court. This Court stayed the orders of the Education Officer, Circular of the Director and the said Government Resolution. It further appears that in view of the orders passed by this Court, respondent No.2 had issued a communication to respondent No.3 thereby directing to inform the Education Officer concerned not to withhold the salaries of the staff working in the said branches. Inspite of these directions, communicated to the Zilla Parishad Latur on 31.01.1994, the Zilla Parishad, Latur decided to close down the branch schools and to withhold the salary of the teachers on the basis of the resolution and accordingly issued an order on 01.02.1994 to close down the branch schools, which is impugned in this petition. {4} 5. During the course of submissions, reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on the decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.3498/1991 dated 17.08.2002, wherein it is observed as follows - “Admittedly, for the first time the State Government issued a Government Resolution on 20.12.1988 regulating the process for granting permission to open Sectional Schools. Applications were required to be forwarded with prescribed fee amounting to Rs.1000/- and there were also some other conditions to be complied with. On 20.07.1990, the State Government issued another Resolution and took a policy decision not to grant permission to open Sectional Schools in future. It is also stated that in case of the proposals pending for decision, it would be deemed that such Schools were not granted permission. Both these Government Resolutions, do not affect any of the petitioners’ case. However, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani issued a communication on 21.06.1991 and called upon the petitioner – Schools to close down the Sectional Schools, which were opened even prior to 20.12.1988 or 20.07.1990, as the case may be. Both these Government Resolutions, if read as it is, do not contemplate any action against the Sectional Schools which were commenced prior to 20.12.1988. The revised policy of the State Government to regulate the permissions for Sectional Schools through the Government Resolution dated 20.12.1988 and the subsequent policy not to entertain such applications vide Government Resolution dated 20.07.1990, could not have been given retrospective effect unless it was stated so specifically.” 6. Bare perusal of the above paragraph will make it clear {5} that the revised policy of the State Government, to regulate permission of the Sectional Schools vide GR dated 20.12.1988 and subsequent policy not to entertain such applications vide GR dated 20.07.1990, could not have been given retrospective effect unless it was stated specifically. It is not disputed that the Sectional Schools / branch schools of the petitioners which were also receiving grant in aid, were started much prior to the issuance of the said decisions. In the premise, the relief claimed by the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision rendered in writ petition No. 3498/1991. Hence we have not hesitation to quash and set aside the order dated 01.02.1994. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the order dated 01.02.1994. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1278-94