Bombay High CourtWP/2439/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Iqra Education Society, Through Its President, Darwa v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, School Education And Sports Department And 3 Others

2016-03-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.N. Deshmukh2 pages

1403wp2439.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2439 OF 2015 (Iqra Education Society thr. its President, Darwa, Dist. Yavatmal vs. State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department & Ors.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

MARCH 14, 2016.

Heard Shri De, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Rane, learned AGP for the respondents. The petitioner, who has sought leave to open a new Secondary School by moving an application on 04.10.2014, from the Academic Year 2015-16 is, before this Court seeking time bound disposal of that application. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have filed a reply and accepted that the proposal is pending with the State Government. They have also stated that they would abide by the decision which may be ultimately taken by the State Government in this connection.

Today, Shri De, learned counsel has tendered a rejoinder and stated therein that the State Level Committee has favourably recommended the proposal of the petitioner. The learned AGP has received a copy of said rejoinder in the Court and she is seeking time to verify facts mentioned in it.

However, we are not inclined to record any finding in that respect.

1403wp2439.15 The proposal is still pending with the State Government and the petitioner has sought permission to open School in the Academic Session 2015-16 which is now expiring. Hence, if a new School has to come up, it can come up in the next Academic Session 2016-17 from June 2016.

Therefore, without observing anything on merits of the controversy, we direct Respondent No. 1, with whom the proposal is stated to be pending, to take appropriate decision on said proposal within a period of eight weeks. With these directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the present writ petition. No order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE *GS.