Bombay High CourtWP/9906/2015disposed off

Kandi Kantayani Vinayak Alias Sou. Purud Timesh v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2017-10-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep Kashinath Shinde,Hon'Ble Shri Justice B.R. Gavai2 pages

930-wp-9906.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9906 OF 2015 Kandi Kantayani Vinayak ... Petitioner.

V/s State of Maharashtra and Ors .... Respondents.

Mrs. Ujwala V. Karpe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P for Respondent No.1 to 3. Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. P.B. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 11th October, 2017 P. C.

1] In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 04/10/2017, Mr. Sunil Ratansingh Chauhan, Director, Primary Education, is present in Court.

2] Petition is filed by the Petitioner for writ of mandamus, directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to take action against Respondent No.5 - Management.

3] Mr. Killedar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4, submits that Respondent No.4 has received instructions from the State Government to send a fresh proposal for de-recognition of Respondent No. 6 - School. He further submits 1/2

930-wp-9906.15 that such a proposal would be submitted within a period of four weeks from today.

4] Respondent No.1 is directed to consider and take a decision on the proposal which would be received from Respondent No.4, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal, after giving hearing to all the concerned parties. 5] Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that no case is made out for de-recognition of Respondent No.6.

6] By our order, we have recorded the statement of Respondent No.4 that Respondent No.4 shall submit a proposal for derecognition of Respondent No.6 - School and directed the State Government to consider the same in accordance with law. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 would always be at liberty to put up their case before Respondent No.1 which will have to be taken into consideration by the said Respondent.

7] Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.) 2/2