Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Swargiya Raghobaji Bachale Shikshan ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 20 September, 2019

Author: R. K. Deshpande

Bench: R. K. Deshpande, Vinay Joshi

                                 1                                907-WP170.17.odt

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 170 OF 2017

          Swargiya Raghobaji Bachale
          Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wardha,
          through its President Chandrashekhar
          S/o. Bhauraoji Bachale,
          Aged about 44 years, Occu. - Service,
          R/o. Manas Mandir, Ward No.2
          Wardha - 442001.                                PETITIONER


                           ...VERSUS...

 1.       State of Maharashtra
          Through its Secretary,
          School Education and Sport
          Department, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai -32.

 2.       Director of Education,
          Maharashtra State,
          Pune - 1.

 3.       Deputy Director of Education,
          Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

 4.       Education Officer (Primary),
          Zilla Parishad, Wardha.                         RESPONDENTS


                                          WITH
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1628 OF 2017


          Gramin Urdu Shikshan Sanstha,
          Through its Vice President Gulam Jainul
          Abedin Gulam Mustafa, Patur,
          District - Akola.                               PETITIONER


::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                     ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:30:53 :::
                                  2                                907-WP170.17.odt


                           ...VERSUS...


 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          Through its Principal Secretary,
          Department of School Education,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

 2.       The Director of Education,
          State of Maharashtra,
          Pune.

 3.       The Deputy Director of Education,
          (Secondary), Amravati Division, Amravati.

 4.       The Education Officer (Secondary),
          Zilla Parishad, Washim.                         RESPONDENTS


                                          WITH
                 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 92 OF 2017


          Iqra Education Society, Through its
          President Syed Nisar Syed Mustafa,
          Aged about 46 years,
          R/o. Darwha, District - Yavatmal.               PETITIONER


                           ...VERSUS...


 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          Through its Principal Secretary,
          Schools and Sports Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

 2.       The Director of Education,
          State of Maharashtra,
          (Secondary & Higher Secondary),
          Pune.



::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                     ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:30:53 :::
                                   3                                  907-WP170.17.odt


 3.       The Deputy Director of Education,
          Amravati Division, Amravati.

 4.       The Education Officer (Secondary),
          Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.                          RESPONDENTS



 Writ Petition No.170/2017.
 Mr. N. D. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. Amit Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for
 Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
 Mr. J. S. Mokadam, Advocate for Respondent No.4.


 Writ Petition No.1628/2017.
 Mr. A. I. Sheikh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. Amit Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for
 Respondent Nos.1 to 4.


 Public Interest Litigation No.92/2017.
 Mr. A. I. Sheikh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. Amit Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for
 Respondent Nos.1 to 4.



                           CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
                                   VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
                           DATE       : 20th September, 2019.



 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R. K. DESHPANDE, J.)

1] Civil Application bearing No.2539 of 2019 filed in Writ Petition No. 170 of 2017 for grant of urgent hearing is allowed. ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:30:53 :::

4 907-WP170.17.odt 2] The matter is heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties on merits. All the matters are heard by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3] In all these petitions, the action of the respondents granting permission under the provisions of the Maharashtra Self - Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012, brought into force with effect from 04-01-2013 to run the schools and classes of self-financed basis and denying the grant-in-aid from the State Government, is the subject matter of challenge. The Writ Petition No.1628 of 2017 and Public Interest Litigation No. 92 of 2017 have been filed by the society having minority status. 4] It is the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai that as per Section 5(1) of the said Act, the permission has been granted subject to the condition mention in Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the expenditure incurred on account of establishment of a school, upgradation of school and maintenance of the school, is to be borne by the Management.

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:30:53 :::

5 907-WP170.17.odt 5] The reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Maria Grace Rural Middle School, Venkatarayapuram Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 - Madras page -52 and it is urged that the institutions again insist for payment of grant-in-aid from the State Government.

6] We have gone through the said decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court, which held that Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act dealing with grants not payable to new private school, new classes and course of institutions. It is held that the grant-in-aid is neither a fundamental right, nor a statutory right and it depends upon the economic capacity of the State. This being a position, we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to receive grant-in-aid as a matter of right, and it is solely the discretion of the State Government.

In view of above, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                   JUDGE                  JUDGE
 RGurnule




::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                     ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:30:53 :::