1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2623/2011 Fakruddin Ali Ahmed Shikshan Sanstha and anr. ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Khapre, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 5. Mrs. Jachak, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Sundaram, Advocate for respondent no. 6. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & M. N. GILANI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner has questioned order dated 07.05.2011 passed by respondent no.2, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana, permitting 5th standard classes to be opened in respondent no.3. It is not disputed that the impugned order, which was passed by Education Officer could not have been passed by him in view of judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 111/2011 decided on 23.03.2011 where this Court categorically held that the Chief Executive Officer had no such power to grant permission. The Chief Executive 2 Officer then i.e. respondent no.6 herein Mr. Sadanand Januji Koche was a party to those proceedings. Nonetheless, he seems to have proceeded to grant permission in obvious contravention of the order of this Court. This Court has been constrained to issue notice to the said officer. At the hearing of this petition, Mrs. Jachak, learned counsel for respondent no.2-authority states that the impugned order now stands withdrawn. It must follow, therefore, that the classes which have been commenced in pursuance of the impugned order should be closed down, immediately. Respondents shall ensure that the classes are so closed down. As such, it is not necessary to adjudicate on the impugned order. We, however, find that the petitioners have been forced to approach this Court for no reason other than the passing of a completely untenable order by an officer, who had no authority to pass such an order. We, accordingly, direct that respondent no.6 shall pay costs in the sum of 3 Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. The petition has become infructuous and disposed of accordingly. Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for respondent no.6, seeks time to file an affidavit. Stand over to 23.09.2011. JUDGE JUDGE kahale