Rashida Begam Urdu High School Harsool Authrangabad Through Head Master Mohammad Wasimoddin v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8878 OF 2018 Rashida Begam Urdu High School, Harsool, Aurangabad, through its Head master Mohammad Wasimoddin, Age: 35 years, Occu: Service, R/o Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2.

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Tq. and District Aurangabad 3.

The Deputy Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune ..RESPONDENTS Mr C. V. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr G. O. Wattamwar, A.G.P. for respondents CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE : 2nd August, 2018 ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr Thombre, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondents.

(2) 2.

Mr Thombre submits that on 11th June, 2017, notice was issued to the petitioner-institute. Reference was made to the communication of the Director of Education dated 8th June, 2018. It was stated in the notice that the State Government conducted a special drive during the period from 3rd October, 2011 to 5th October, 2011. It is revealed in the special drive that various institutes obtained monetary benefits from the State Government by showing additional number of students. It is also stated in the communication/notice that the Public Interest Litigation Nos. 18 of 2012 and 31 of 2012 were filed in this Court and this Court issued directions time to time in said public interest litigations.

3.

Mr Thombre, learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in response to the notice, the petitioner-institute filed reply on 25th June, 2018. He then, by inviting our attention to a communication dated 26th July, 2018 placed on record, submitted that by way of the said communication, the Director of Education (Primary) informed to all the Education Officers (Primary), the School Inspectors, the Education Officers of Greater Bombay area and the Education Officer of the Corporation of Greater Bombay, to initiate action against the erring persons. He then submitted that the notices are issued even to the teachers and the Head Masters of the schools along with the President/Secretary of the education institutes.

(3) 4.

Mr Thombre then submitted that the Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 was the subject matter before this Court in Writ Petition No.4168 of 2012 and by judgment and order dated 24th October, 2013, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to struck down Clause Nos.1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 of the said Government Resolution. It was the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the decision of this Court, the Director of Education could not have issued a communication dated 26th July, 2018 nor notice could have been issued against the petitioner-institute or against the other President/Secretary of alike institutes.

5.

A similar attempt was made before us in Writ Petition No.8242 of 2018. We have dealt with in detail the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not necessary for us to reiterate our observations which are already placed on record with the copy of the order dated 24th July, 2018 in Writ Petition No.8242 of 2018. At the cost of repetition, we state that the communication dated 26th July, 2018 refers to certain orders passed by this Court in public interest litigation. It states that this Court directed the authorities of the State Government to initiate action. In communication dated 26th July, 2018, it is specifically stated that on the material available with the State Government, a prima facie opinion is formed by the State Government that institutes' owners have obtained the monetary gains from the State Government which were under the various

(4) State Government schemes, like the mid-day meal, uniform facilities, stationary, term fees, scholarship fees, tuition fees., etc. Then it is stated that the institutes were not entitled to receive these facilities, but by misleading the Government, such benefits are obtained and in some cases when the institutes were required to utilize the Government funds for a specific purpose, it was revealed that the funds were utilized for the other purposes than the purposes for which it were actually required to be utilized. Thus, the institute owners, by creating fabricated material and impressing upon the Government that the said material is true material, obtained certain benefits, as such, it is necessary to take criminal action against such institutes. 6.

Clause No.4 of the communication then states that notices were already issued to certain institutes and by considering all the relevant record, the responsibility be fixed on such erring persons and action be initiated against such persons, who are at fault. It also refers to a contempt petition filed in this Court and then it is stated that the necessary action be initiated at the earliest.

7.

Considering the text and tenor of the communication, it only reveals that the State Government is desirous of initiation of an action against those persons, who have obtained the monetary gains from the Government. In our opinion, this mischief is not only causing loss to the public exchequer but it also results in depriving those students, who were in fact entitled to

(5) receive the benefits of the State Government scheme and the benefits of the scheme never reached to these students and the amount was siphoned for some other oblique motive than to disburse it to needy students. If the State Government is proceeding with this object, then the object is certainly laudable and any hindrances in such attempt of the Government would frustrate the object.

8.

Considering these facts, we are unable to accept submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State Government is prevented from taking any action against the erring persons, even if the mistake is in the nature of certain criminal act.

9.

Though it was vehemently submitted that Clause Nos.1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 of the Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 were struck down by this Court, as such, the State Government ought not to have initiated action, we are unable to accept this submission also, as referred to in our earlier order. We have dealt with these clauses and again at the cost of repetition, we state that these clauses are in a way of protection to the teaching staff for holding them responsible in the affairs of inadequate students being available in the school. None of the clauses is in relation to a criminal act which is specified in the communication dated 26th July, 2018. 10.

Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the petition

(6) is clearly premature and the only order that can be passed is in the nature of directions in our order dated 24th July, 2018 and more particularly enumerated in paragraph No.8 of the said order. 11.

Accordingly, we dispose of the petition at the admission stage with the directions that if respondent No.2 has received the reply to the notice issued to the petitioner, respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible. Respondent No.2 is permitted to grant personal hearing, if the petitioner makes such request before him within a period of one week from today.

With these directions, the petition is disposed of. (S. M. GAVHANE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) sjk