Writ Petition No. 8143 of 2024 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to immediately undertake scrutiny of the proposal of the petitioner, claiming reimbursement, by undertaking necessary inquiry which shall happen, as expeditiously as possible and to be concluded in any case within six…
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Potdar Eklavya Sandesh Advocate for Respondent No.1 - UOI : Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. R.S. Wani Advocate for respondent No.5 : Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi … CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 01.08.2024
994.WP.8143.24.odt PER COURT: Issue notices to the respondents for final disposal. Learned advocate Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni waives service for respondent No.1. Learned AGP waives service for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned advocate Mr. Suryawanshi waives service for respondent No.5.
The petitioner is the Educational Institute running schools. The petitioner is seeking reimbursement of fees in lieu of admitting 25% students under the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Though the respondent No.1 - Union of India has taken over burden to share some of such reimbursement, essentially, the State authorities respondent Nos.2 to 5 who are supposed to undertake the scrutiny regarding entitlement of such petitioners seeking reimbursement.
In the light of above, the prayers in this petition is innocuous.
Operative part
The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to immediately undertake scrutiny of the proposal of the petitioner, claiming reimbursement, by undertaking necessary inquiry which shall happen, as expeditiously as possible and to be concluded in any case within six weeks. The petitioner shall be reimbursed to the extent found entitled to after such inquiry within four weeks thereafter. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.