Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha Karanjkalla Through Chairman v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2962 OF 2019 Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha Karanjkalla, Taluka Kalamb, District Osmanabad Through its Chairman ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2.

Director of Education Secondary & higher Secondary Education, Dr. Anni Besant Road, Central Building, Maharashtra State, Pune 3.

The Deputy Director of Education Office of Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur The Education Officer (Sec.) Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr Hrishikesh A. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner; Ms R.P. Gour, A.G.P. for respondent/State;

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE : 1st MARCH, 2019

(2) ORAL ORDER :

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2.

A limited grievance is raised in the petition in respect of non decision on the proposal submitted to respondent No.1.

3.

Learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 9370 of 2014 seeking challenge to the order of withdrawal and recognition granted to the petitioner - society, though declined to entertain the petition, permitted the petitioner to submit appropriate application before the competent authority and convince the authority that the norms applicable for operating a school and for being recognized have been achieved by the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted a proposal which was routed through the officers, namely, Education Officer (Secondary), Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division and then ultimately it is submitted to respondent No.1 - Principal Secretary through

(3) the Director of Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and the same was accepted by the office of Director of Education on 6th May, 2018.

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner though fairly submitted that the proposal refers to negative reports of the lower authorities, respondent No.1 has not taken any decision on the said proposal. Thus, learned Counsel prays for directions to respondent No.1 to decide the proposal received by him on 6th May, 2018, within stipulated period.

5.

This being a limited prayer, the petition is disposed of at admission stage, with directions to respondent No.1 to decide the proposal dated 6th May, 2018 as expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve (12) weeks from the date of this order, needless to state on the merits of the proposal. If the petitioner approaches respondent No.1 with a request for grant of opportunity of

(4) hearing by way of application or representation, respondent No.1 may consider that representation also on its own merits.

6, With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

( S.M.GAVHANE ) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE Tupe