Bombay High CourtWP/3932/2013dispossed offdismiss for default

Bahujan Hitay Shikshan Sanstha, Through Secretary Shri Sukhdeo S. Meshram v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Dept. Of Education And Sport, Mumbai And 3 Others

2015-02-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale2 pages

wp3932.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.3932 OF 2013 Bahujan Hitay Shikshan Sanstha, A Education Society, Gadchiroli ..vs..

State of Mah. and ors .......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................... Shri A.B. Moon, Counsel for the Petitioner.

Shri T.R. Kankale, AGP for the Respondents.

CORAM

: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2015.

Heard Shri A.B. Moon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T.R. Kankale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

Perused Court's order dated 20.2.2014 and reply affidavit filed by the respondents on 20.1.2015.

In reply affidavit, the respondents have pointed out change in policy.

On 20.2.2014, we have noted the grievance of the petitioner that similarly situated schools have been given some benefits.

The reply filed on 20.1.2015 does not .....2/-

wp3932.13 explain why schools similarly situated have been given different treatment.

However, considering the fact that the petitioner has already started school on the basis of order which is impugned in the present petition, we are not inclined to go into more details at this stage. The petitioner has pointed out that the school has been started in tribal areas.

In this situation, if the State Government has extended some benefits to similarly located schools, it is open to the State Government to consider the request of the petitioner also for similar treatment. It has also to evaluate the proposal of the petitioner in the light of change in policy.

We, therefore, direct the respondents to take suitable decision on the request of the petitioner by 31.5.2015 without fail.

Leaving all rival contentions open and with these directions, we dispose of the writ petition. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-