Meena Shikashan Prasarak Mandal, Solapur v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1132 OF 2016 Dindalitodharak Shri Saint Gadgebaba Niradhar Balak Seva Sangh Trust

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1139 OF 2016 Shri Ganesh Shikashan Prasarak Manadal

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1140 OF 2016 Meena Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1168 OF 2016 Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Pandharpur

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1214 OF 2016 Jay Jagdamba Bahuddshiya Sanstha Sarjapur

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. A.R. Rayani for the Petitioners.

Mr. V.M. Mali, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vijay Killedar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 1/3

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATED : 4th JULY, 2016.

P. C. :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2.

By these petitions the Petitioners have challenged the recommendations of the Zilla Parishad to the Director of Social Welfare for cancellation of approval of the hostel run by the Petitioner. It is the case of the Zilla Parishad that the Petitioners had obtained the approval fraudulently. This fact is denied by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. In any case the ultimate decision will have to be taken by the Director, Social Welfare and as such decision will be taken only after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner. In the event the decision adverse to the Petitioners' interest same is appealable to the State Government.

3.

We therefore, find that as on date no order is passed by the Director of Social Welfare and the Petitioners have challenged only the recommendations of the Zilla Parishad, on which decision is yet to be taken. The petitions are premature and we therefore, decline to 2/3

interfere in the same.

4.

The petitions are accordingly, dismissed.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) 3/3