High Court
Legal Reasoning
wp-3793.241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.3793 OF 20241) Kakasaheb Jayaji Wagh, Age-35 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Sahastramuli, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,2) Sadashiv Bhausaheb Wagh, Age-30 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Sahastramuli, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,3) Sandip Digambar Bongane, Age-34 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Sahastramuli, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,4) Kalpana Rohidas Bongane, Age-26 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Sahastramuli, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,5) Kailas Kundlik Wagh Age-33 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Sahastramuli, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,6) Narayan Keshav Wagh Age-33 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Sahastramuli, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,7) Dropadabai Navnath Ugale, Age-42 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Sahastramuli, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, wp-3793.2428) Gani Ibrahim Shaikh, Age-35 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Gadiwat, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,9) Tayyab Shabbir Shaikh, Age-40 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Gadiwat, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,10) Kadir Shaikh Chand, Age-38 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Gadiwat, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,11) Narayan Ramnath Gawande, Age-39 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Gadiwat, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,12) Dhumsing Mangalu Rathod, Age-65 years, Occu:Agri & Labourer, R/o-Sahastramuli, Post-Ghardon, Tq. & Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department, Madam Kama Road, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,2) The Desk Officer, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department, Maharashtra State, Madam Kama Road, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,3) The Director, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune,
Legal Reasoning
wp-3793.2434) The Regional Deputy Director, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare (Regional), Aurangabad,5) The Assistant Director, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare, Aurangabad,6) Marathwada Banjara Seva Sangh, Naiknagar, Banjara Colony, Aurangabad, Through its President,7) Marathwada Banjara Seva Sangh, Naiknagar, Banjara Colony, Aurangabad, Through its Secretary,8) Rajendra Gulabsing Jadhav, Age-60 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Banjara Colony, Khokadpura, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. I.K. Wagh Advocate for Petitioners. Dr. Kalpalata Patil-Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 12th APRIL, 2024 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Petition has been filed by the parents of the wardswho are taking education in Ashram School, Shivgad Tanda,Taluka and District-Aurangabad for quashing and setting asidethe order dated 15th December 2023 issued by respondent No.2 wp-3793.244and order dated 27th December 2023 issued by respondent No.3.Further prayer is to direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to makeeffective provision for new place, new building for absorption ofstudents in the same locality. 2.Respondent No.2 initially by order dated 29th March 2022and then 29th March 2023 appointed respondent No. 5- AssistantDirector, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare, Aurangabad asadministrator over seven Ashram Schools being run byMarathwada Banjara Seva Sangh. Thereafter by order dated 15thDecember 2023, the Director, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare,Maharashtra State was asked by respondent No.2 to take actionfor cancellation of recognition and transfer of seven AshramSchools run by the said Marathwada Banjara Seva Sangh, to anybackward education institution. Then On 27th December 2023Respondent No.3 cancelled recognition of seven Ashram Schools,including the school wherein the wards of petitioners are takingeducation, run by Marathwada Banjara Seva Sangh. In fact theGovernment with an intention to provide better educationfacilities to the children from tribal areas, had set up the AshramSchools in the State of Maharashtra. The permissions /recognitions were granted in favour of several non- Government wp-3793.245organizations, to run such Ashram Schools. The wards of thepetitioners were studying in the primary, secondary and highersecondary Ashram School which has been now de-recognized byrespondent No.3. The petitioners contend that there are noschools available near their village as Ashram School for primary,secondary and higher secondary education. After theadministrator was appointed, the petitioners had challenged thesaid appointment by filing an Appeal before the Hon’ble Ministerholding charge of Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department.However, since the cancellation has been ordered and the saiddecision would affect more than 300 students who are takingeducation, the petitioners have made the prayer that theimpugned order should be quashed and set aside andrespondent Nos. 1 to 5 should be directed to give effectiveprovision for new place, new building for absorption of studentsin the same locality.3.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Wagh appearing for the thepetitioners and learned AGP Dr. Kalpalata Patil-Bharaswadkarappearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. In order to cut short, wewould like to say that the learned Advocates appearing on behalf wp-3793.246of the respective parties have argued in support of theirrespective contentions.4.Learned Advocate for the petitioners relies on SantDnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha and another vs. State ofMaharashtra and others, 2020(1) All MR 932 (S.C.), wherein itwas considered that in the interest of the students the academicsession should be allowed to be completed and certain directionswere given.5.At the outset, we would like to say that the decision inSant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha and another (supra) willnot be applicable to the facts of the present case as the saidPetition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by theemployees of the school. It was then observed that the HighCourt was fully justified in levelling criticism on the actionundertaken by the State Government in respect of issue oftransfer of the schools. Herein this case, perusal of thecommunication would show that the State Government had triedits level best that instead of transferring the school, whether thecondition of the institution can be improved by appointing anadministrator. When it was found that there is no improvement, wp-3793.247the Government then decided to de-recognize those schools andtake up the steps for transfer of those schools. It is also to benoted that the petitioners have not come with the case that theprocess of transfer of school is now complete. When the saidprocess is still undergoing, the petitioners cannot say that theprovisions under the relevant Government Resolutions will not beadhered to. The petitioners in fact have no locus standi tochallenge the said action of the State Government, in the sensethat if the management is not functioning properly and could notbe improved, then the petitioners are not the proper persons toask respondent No.1 to start the said school in respect of whichmany complaints have been received. The management cannotbe asked generally to run the school, which might be underfinancial crisis or having some other problems. The writ ofmandamus, therefore, cannot be issued in such cases.6.The Writ Petition stands dismissed. [S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/APR24