MARATHWADA PUBLIC ENGLISH SCHOOL OF SAKIB v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 940 WRIT PETITION NO. 12493 OF 2024 MARATHWADA PUBLIC ENGLISH SCHOOL OF SAKIB BAHUUDDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSHTA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND 942 WRIT PETITION NO. 12495 OF 2024 SHAURYA PUBLIC SCHOOL CHAPANER OF CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJIRAJE BAHUUDDESHIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Pokale Dnyaneshwar Bhaurao. AGPs for Respondent/s-State : Mr. V. M. Kagane, Mr. N. S. Tekale, respectively. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. R. R. Bangar. Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. S. R. Dheple. … CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 19.11.2024 PER COURT :-
These are the matters of reimbursement of fees in respect of 25% students admitted by the petitioners/ management under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 2 940-WP.12493-24.odt
Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGP waives service for respondents/State. Mr. Dheple learned Counsel waives service for respondent No.5. Mr. Bangar learned Counsel waives service for respondent No.1.
We have heard both sides.
We dispose of the writ petitions by directing the respondents to undertake scrutiny of petitioners’ proposals independently on its merit and take appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within four (4) weeks from today and if it is found entitled to get reimbursement, shall disburse the money to it within a period of four weeks thereafter. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S. G. MEHARE, J.) … vmk/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 19 Nov 2024. The bench was SHAILESH P BRAHME, S G MEHARE.
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.