Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak v. The State of Maharashtra

Judgment

3. Mr V.D.Salunke, Advocate holding for Mr S.J. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners Mr D.R.Kale, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr A.D.Kasliwal, Advocate for respondent No.3 W.P.No.4053/2009 2

CORAM : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ DATE : 7th April 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. MHATRE, J.)

2. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. The petitioners have approached this Court against the decision of CIDCO i.e. Respondent No.2 to allot Plot No.40 in Section “C” at CIDCO, Waluj Corporation to respondent No.3. This plot was reserved for secondary schools and according to petitioner No.1 it is the only institution, which is eligible amongst the applicants for being allotted the plot.

3. Petitioner No.1 is a registered society and a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It has been running educational institutions including primary schools, secondary schools, higher secondary schools and senior colleges in the Marathwada region for several years. Petitioner No.1 has established schools and colleges in the rural areas of the Marathwada region. Petitioner No.2 is a school run by petitioner No.1 in the Bajaj Nagar area of Waluj. This school started functioning in the year 2006-2007. It has a primary as well as a secondary section. Since this school is functioning from rented premises, the petitioners wanted to purchase a plot of land for W.P.No.4053/2009 3 the school premises. At the moment there are about 429 students in the primary school and 137 students in the secondary section of the school.

4. CIDCO invited applications for plots by publishing an advertisement in the daily newspaper “Sakal” on 26.2.2008. The petitioners applied in accordance with the various rules and conditions for allotment. Plot No.40 in Sector “C” in CIDCO, Waluj Corporation was reserved for secondary schools. The petitioners, therefore, applied for this plot on 17.3.2008, which was the last date for submission of the form. All the required documents including the audit reports were annexed to the form.

5. Respondent No.3 is registered under the Bombay Trusts Act and the Societies Registration Act. It has not established a secondary school or college, which is recognised by the State Government or by the Deputy Director of Education. Respondent No.3 is, in fact, running a primary school which according to the petitioners is not recognised as no permission has been granted by the State as yet for running the school. It appears that respondent No.3 also applied for the same plot although it was well aware of the fact that the plot was reserved for secondary schools. The plot was allotted to respondent No.3 although it did W.P.No.4053/2009 4 not fulfill the basic creteria. It was directed to deposit the purchase amount in installments within a stipulated time.

6. The petitioners secured copies of the application and the documents submitted by respondent No.3 along with its application to CIDCO under the Right to Information Act. An audit report of the Principal’s personal accounts was submitted by respondent No.3 rather than an audit report of the institution. Various other documents were submitted by respondent No.3, which according to the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria as stipulated in the advertisement or in the booklet issued by CIDCO for allotment of the plot. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners, being aggrieved by the fact that Plot No.40 was not allotted to them and was instead allotted to respondent No.3, have filed the present petition.

7. A perusal of the advertisement issued on 26.2.2008 indicates that Plot No.40 was reserved for a secondary school. The advertisement further stipulates the conditions, which were required to be fulfilled by any applicant for the proposed allotment of the plot. Accordingly, the petitioners applied on

17.3.2008. They also furnished a demand draft for Rs.93,000/- as required by the CIDCO. On receipt of the form, all further details including the audit reports for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, W.P.No.4053/2009 5 2005-2006 were furnished, as required. The audit report for the year 2006-2007 was not annexed though the requirement was that the audit report for the three years prior to the form being submitted were to be furnished along with the form.

8. The application submitted by respondent No.3 has also been annexed to the petition as the petitioners obtained a copy of the application by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The scrutiny report, which was submitted by the CIDCO indicates that Plot No.40 undisputedly was reserved for a secondary school. The report also mentions that the audit reports of the three previous years have been annexed along with the petitioner’s application form. It appears from this report that respondent No.3 had annexed the personal audit report and not the audit report of the institution as required under the conditions for allotment of the plot. In fact, Respondent No.3 had applied for the allotment of other plots, besides Plot No.40.

9. An affidavit has been filed by the Administrator, CIDCO in reply to the petition. He has averred that audit reports were submitted by the petitioners as required for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2206. However, the report for the year 2006-2007 was not submitted. As regards respondent No.3, he has admitted that it was running a Balwadi and a primary school W.P.No.4053/2009 6 upto the third standard for five years. He has further stated that although the respondent No.3 had applied for recognition of the school, there was no indication that such recognition had been granted by the State. The Administrator has further averred that the personal audit reports for the past three years, which were submitted by respondent No.3 and which have been certified by a Chartered Accountant were misconstrued through oversight as those of the respondent No.3 institution. Accordingly, the plot was allotted to respondent No.3. He has, however, admitted that the possession of the plot has not been delivered as yet.

10. Considering the documents on record, in our opinion there is an obvious illegality in allotting the plot to respondent No.3. The school is neither recognised nor is it a secondary school, which was the primary condition for allotment of the plot. In these circumstances, CIDCO could not have allotted the plot to respondent No.3 in any event. The Scrutiny Report which is on record indicates that the application of petitioner No.1 institution was found to be in order, despite which the plot was allotted to respondent No.3. In fact, the report clearly mentions that on scrutinizing the application of respondent No.3, it was found invalid as it was incomplete and faulty. W.P.No.4053/2009 7

11. Accordingly, the impugned order allotting Plot No.40 in Sector “C” at CIDCO, Waluj Corporation to respondent No.3, passed by CIDCO is set aside. The petitioner No.1 being the only eligible applicant should be allotted that plot after it produces all audit reports upto date. These audit reports from 2006-2007 upto date will be furnished by petitioner No.1 to CIDCO within four weeks from today. The amount, which has been deposited by respondent No.3 with CIDCO shall be refunded by CIDCO to respondent No.3 within four weeks, in accordance with the rules applicable. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. ( S.S. SHINDE, J.) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (vvr/4053.09)