Sanjay Bhagwanrao Ghawad And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 WP 12110 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 12110 of 2016 Sanjay Bhagwanrao Ghawad And Others.

.. Petitioners.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra And Others.

.. Respondents.

---- Shri. Y.P. Deshmukh, Advocate, for petitioners. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Shri. S.B. Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General, for Union of India - respondent No.5.

---- Coram: Dr. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & R.M. BORDE, J.

Date : 30 June 2017 ORDER:

1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India.

2 WP 12110 of 2016 2) Admittedly the institution of the petitioners is a private institution. The petitioners' grievance is that initially Union of India started the scheme of providing funds for encouraging vocational education at higher secondary level. Subsequently the Union of India did not continue the process but handed over the scheme to the State Government. According to the petitioners, the State Government ought to have implemented the scheme to the full extent in terms of the scheme by providing grants to all such institutions where vocational education at higher secondary level is parted with.

3) In response, Union of India which, according to the petitioners said to have diverted the funds and the scheme, had categorically mentioned at para 8 page 88 that no grant or financial assistance had been granted to the State for any Government aided or private secondary or higher secondary school under the above scheme. The petitioners are before us with regard to the specific M.C.V.C course. There is categorical statement on behalf of the Union of India that private institutions are not entitled for such financial assistance. In the absence of

3 WP 12110 of 2016 any other material wherein, irrespective of the nature of the institutions i.e. including private institutions, are entitled for grant, we fail to understand what relief the petitioners can have at the hands of this Court. On the other hand, the financial assistance is provided only to the vocational education in Government schools as per the norms of the scheme of both the States as well Union Territory. In spite of the above observations, if any Government Resolution of the State Government indicates such benefits to private vocational institutions like the petitioners, they are always at liberty to approach the State Government seeking such financial assistance and the same shall be considered in accordance with the procedure or the scheme. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.M. BORDE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) rsl