Writ Petition No. 2625 of 2026 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ANIL S KILOR, R D WAKODE
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid observations and directions, thepetition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
118.WP.2625.20261/3IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPURWRIT PETITION NO. 2625 OF 2026 Sitaramji Ganorkar English School, Pathrot thr. its Head Mistress Ku. YogitaBhujangrao Rathate, Amravati & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary & Ors. ______________________________________________________________________________Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P.P. Pendke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5/State. -------------------------------CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND R AJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE:01.04.2026Heard Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. P.P. Pendke, learned AGP for respondentNos.1, 3, 4 and 5/State. 2. The contention is that the petitioners are schools within the meaning of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Childrento Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Section 12(2) of the Act mandates the reimbursement of the fees incurred by such petitioner-schools towards the expenses incurred in imparting education to 25% of its quota which is sponsored by the State Government. It is claimed that reimbursement of fees is not made since 2019-2020. It is further brought to our notice that the similar issue felt for consideration before the PrincipalSeat and also at Aurangabad Bench in Writ PetitionNo.7672/2022 (Vivekananda Academy of Human Excellence, Chimangaon V/s. State of Maharashtra and others) with connected matters decided on 21.9.2023 and in Writ Petition
118.WP.2625.20262/3No.3094/2024 (Maharashtra Bahuudeshiya Samajik Sanstha, Jalna and another V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others)decided on 20.3.2024 at Aurangabad Bench.3. As such it is claimed that the petition be disposed of with direction to the respondent State Government to cause scrutiny of the claim put-forth by the petitioners.4. Our attention is invited to the observations made at Principal Seat in para 4 which reads thus:-
4. The Respondents will have to scrutinize case of the Petitioner as regards eligibility, quantum and thereafter will have to take necessary steps. Learned AGP on instructions states that cases of each of the Petitioner would be scrutinized within a period of two weeks. So as to ensure that there is no further time sought on behalf of the Respondents, we grant four weeks time to the Respondents. Within this period the case of each of the Petitioner would be scrutinized and the eligibility, quantum be determined by the concernedRespondent. The amount admissible to the Petitioners should be released within a period of 2 weeks thereafter. If the Petitioners are not entitled then the order to that effect bepassed. If the Petitioners are aggrieved by total denial or partial dis-imbursement of the amount claimed by them, it is open to them to take such action as is permissible in law.
5. We grant four weeks time to the respondents to scrutinize case of each of the petitioners as regards eligibility, quantum and to take necessary steps. Within this period, the case of each of the petitioners should be scrutinized and the eligibility, quantum be determined by the concerned respondent. Theamount admissible to the petitioners should be released withina period of 2 weeks thereafter. If the petitioners are not entitled then the order to that effect be passed. If the petitioners are
Operative part
118.WP.2625.20263/3aggrieved by total denial or partial disbursement of the amount claimed by them, it is open to them to take such action as is permissible in law.6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)Vijaykumar
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid observations and directions, thepetition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right of Childrento Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — s. 2.
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.