Maulana Azad Minority Education And Welfare Society Isoli Chikhli Buldhana Thr. Secretary v. State Of Maharashtra Dept. Of School Education And Sports Mumbai Thr. Secretary And Others

2208wp5181.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5181 OF 2016 (Maulana Azad Minority Education and Welfare Society, Isoli, Tahsil - Chikhli, District - Buldhana thr. its Secretary vs. The State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education thr. its Secretary & 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 & ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

AUGUST 22, 2017.

Heard Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri R.N. Ghuge, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2.

Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have not filed any reply as yet and the learned AGP is seeking time.

3.

We find that the process for establishment of Urdu Medium High School, which commenced about two years back, is still incomplete. Though the petitioner submits that he is eligible and has raised objection to consideration of proposal of Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 4 points out that the petitioner has made some improvements, we do not wish to go into the correctness of rival contentions at this stage. 4.

The learned AGP, from reply of Respondent No. 3 - Education Officer, wants to demonstrate certain allegedly misleading statements made by the petitioner. 5.

The proposal is pending with Respondent No. 2. Considering the need of the area, the process has been

2208wp5181.16 initiated about three years back vide advertisement dated 21.08.2014. The places mentioned in the advertisement or at least the place about which the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 are competing, is, therefore, still unprovided for. In such matters, decision needs to be taken expeditiously.

6.

We, therefore, direct Respondent No. 2 to expedite the process pending before him and to take suitable decision upon it as per law in next six weeks. After such decision, the papers shall be submitted by him to Respondent No. 1 for further consideration in next two weeks. Respondent No. 1 shall take suitable final decision on the proposals within next two months.

7.

With these directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the present writ petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.