Bombay High Court
M/S Ganesh Motor Driving School And Anr vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 6 July, 2018
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
2025.07wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2025 OF 2007
1. M/s. Ganesh Motor Driving School,
Vidyut Colony, Anand Nagar Road,
Jalna through its Director
Shri. Sakharam s/o Mukund Bhombe,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Vidyut Colony, Jalna.
2. Modern Technical Training Institute,
Vidyut Colony, Old Jalna, Jalna,
through its Principal
Shri. Sakharam s/o Mukund Bhombe,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Vidyut Colony, Jalna. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Ministry of Social
Welfare (Secretary),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Managing Director,
Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Hanuman Tekdi, Infront of
Aradhana Building,
Boriwali (E), Mumbai
3. The Regional Manager,
Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe
Development Corporation Ltd.,
MHADA Building No.1,
Near Baba Petrol Pump,
Bus Stand Road, Aurangabad
4. The District Manager,
Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 :::
2025.07wp
(2)
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna ..RESPONDENTS
Mr S.R. Pande, Advocate for petitioners;
Mr A. S. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent No.1;
Mr D. B. Bhange, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
S. M. GAVHANE,JJ.
DATE : 6th JULY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.)
With the consent of both the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petition is of the year 2007. The petitioner Institute is driving school. The basic prayer in the petition is prayer clause (B), which reads thus:
"(B) The Hon'ble High Court may pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby direct the respondent No.4 to reimburse the tuition fees of both the institutions to the petitioners with along with the interest @18% per annum."::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 :::
2025.07wp (3)
3. Our attention was invited to certain documents placed on record by learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, Exhs.A and B collectively. The grievance of the petitioner is, the petitioner- Institute is running driving school at Anand Nagar Road, Jalna. Respondent No.4 Corporation allot certain students for providing education of driving skill. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that driving school, being run by the petitioner is fairly acknowledged Institute as it is engaged in the driving school establishment for more than seven years at the time of submitting representation to respondent No.4.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that list of the students provided by respondent No.4 i.e. document at Exh.B clearly shows that respondent No.4 admits that the petitioner-Institute imparts skill of driving and for the year 2005-2006, batch of 25 student was admitted by the petitioner-Institute. Perusal of ::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 ::: 2025.07wp (4) the document shows that these students are sponsored by respondent No.4 for gaining training and course period is of 45 days.
5. Learned Counsel, by inviting our attention to Exh.C submitted that respondent No.4 granted permission to these 25 students and fees of the course for Light Motor Vehicle was Rs.2,300/- and for Auto Rickshaw Training was Rs.2,000/-. He then submitted that similar scheme was made available to provide vocational training and one Institute, namely, Modern Technical Institute, Jalna was also imparting training in the trades, like T.V. repairs, Radio repairs, Wireman, Fitter, etc. The petition-Institute was also sponsored some students for other trades, like T.V. repairs, Radio repairs, Wireman, Fitter, etc. He then submitted that all those students, who have completed their training course were also granted permanent licence and in view of this fact, the petitioner-Institute submitted representation to respondent NO.4 on 9th February, 2006. It is submitted to respondent NO.4 ::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 ::: 2025.07wp (5) that the petitioner-Institute was to incur expenses for providing training to the students and other ancillary things. For the said purpose, the petitioner was to avail loan from financial Institute and if fees of the student is not reimbursed by respondent No.4 - Corporation, the petitioner-Institute may suffer financial loss.
6. Learned Counsel then submitted that again representation was submitted to respondent No.4 on 11th October, 2006 and it was submitted that if the reimbursement of fees is not disbursed to the petitioner-Institute, the petitioner is constrained to approach to Court of law. He then submitted that as there was no response from respondent No.4, the petitioner-Institute filed a petition before this Court. Learned Counsel for petitioner, thus, prays for allowing the petition in terms of prayer clause (B).
7. Though the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner looks very attractive at the ::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 ::: 2025.07wp (6) first blush, we are unable to accept the submission and thereby granting prayer clause (B).
8. Few facts would be necessary to refer are as under :
Respondent No.4-Corporation has filed affidavit in reply. Mr. Bhange, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 invited our attention to the said affidavit in reply. The submission of learned Counsel for Corporation is, the petition itself is not maintainable before this Court for the reason that the transaction between the Corporation and the petitioner-Institute is clearly in the nature of contractual obligation. Mr. Bhange, learned Counsel then invited our attention to the conditions referred to in the allotment letter. He submitted that there was no time framed fixed either in the allotment letter or any other document to show that the respondent-Corporation accepted the liability of disbursement of the amount of tuition fees before close of financial year i.e. up to 31st March, 2006.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 :::
2025.07wp (7)
9. Mr. Bhange, learned Counsel for Corporation invited our attention to submissions made in the affidavit in reply and it would be useful for our reference to this statement, more particularly paragraph-2. He submitted the object and modalities as stated in this statement. The statement reads thus :
"Para-2 - I say that, the activities of the respondent corporation re such as providing financial assistance to the Matang Community by way of loan for doing business for their self employment and also providing free training of various technical and vocational courses through Govt. recognised Institutions. The petitioner Institutions are Govt. recognised Institutions and working as agent of the respondent corporation for imparting the training to the candidates of Matang Community with a consideration of the reimbursement of the fee which otherwise the poor candidates would not have offer. I say that, according to the norms laid down by the Govt. regarding to the vocational training fees that out of total funds of every ::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 ::: 2025.07wp (8) financial year only 5% amount are to be utilised to these training skill and till the 31st March 2006 funds for vocational training courses were not received from the Govt. Therefore fees of vocational training not been paid to the petitioner."
10. Mr. Bhange, learned Counsel for Corporation reiterates that as the nature of transaction the petitioner-Institute and respondent No. 4 - Corporation is purely contractual liability arising out of civil contract, the petitioner cannot claim before this Court that constitutional right is violated and in turn, cannot pray for issuance of writ. He then fairly admitted that the State Government makes fund available to the corporation and is disbursed as per seniority. The statement is made in para-6 of the affidavit in reply, which reads thus :
"Para-6 - I say that, the proposal for getting funds to such training fees has been submitted before the Govt. and in this regard persuation of respondent corporation is going on and after availability of funds ::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 ::: 2025.07wp (9) the training fees of petitioner Institution will be disbursed as per seniority. The training fees of those Institutions of petitioner of the financial year 2005-06 are yet to be paid. For both the Institutions of the petitioner - trainees are sent for the year 2005-06 after availability of funds from the Govt. fees will be released as per the seniority."
11. We find considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Bhange, learned Counsel to the effect that the nature of transaction is in the nature of civil and contractual liability. The other fact, which cannot be loose sight of is, the petitioner, a training institute approached respondent No. 4 - Corporation to avail certain benefits under the scheme of the Corporation.
12. Considering all these facts, we are of the opinion that the petition is devoid of any merit and in this fact situation, there is no question of granting prayer clause (B), which would be basic prayer in the petition. As such, writ petition is dismissed.
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 :::
2025.07wp (10)
13. Considering the above referred facts, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the petition would not come in the way of the petitioner, if the petitioner approaches respondent No. 4 - Corporation in view of statement made by the Corporation in Para-6. We grant liberty to the petitioner - Institute to approach respondent No. 4
- Corporation to submit representation in view of statement made in para-6 of the affidavit in reply submitted to this Court within three weeks from the date of order. Needless to state that if such representation is received by respondent No.4 - Corporation, same be decided as expeditiously as possible, within twelve weeks from receipt of the same.
14. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(S. M. GAVHANE) (PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tupe
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2018 01:19:34 :::