AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri J.K. Matale, Advocate holding for Shri Parsodkar, Shri Agrawal and Shri Karode, Advocate holding for Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners in respective writ petitions and Ms. T. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents - government authorities.
The petitioners approached this Court for a direction to the State Government to consider their proposals for opening of a new School without insisting for an undertaking that they would not claim any grants from State.
The State Government then as per its policy, wanted an undertaking that the petitioners would run School on "permanent no grant basis".
This Court has passed some interim orders and it is not in dispute that accordingly the Schools have been set up by the petitioners and are functioning.
On 20.07.2009, the State Government has taken a policy decision and decided to delete the word "permanent" from the orders of recognition granted to such Schools. This is in the back drop of the constitutional obligation upon it and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Eduction Act, 2009.
The learned counsel for the petitioners also wish to rely upon another Government Resolution dated 15.11.2011.
By said Government Resolution, they claimed that after removal of the word "permanent", a scheme has been formulated to extend grants in stages to the subject Schools.
We do not wish to comment on Government Resolution dated 15.11.2011 as it is not the subject matter of the petitions.
During arguments, the learned AGP has invited our attention to a Division Bench judgment dated 08.04.2005 in Writ Petition No. 138 of 2003 and other connected petition, delivered at Bombay. In that judgment in paras 5 and 6, the Division Bench has considered the impact of the word "permanent" in the order granting recognition or approval to the Schools. The Division Bench has found that it does not imply denial of grants permanently and contemplates and envisages review at regular intervals as per policy that may be formulated by the State Government when its financial condition improves. The Division Bench, therefore, observes that request of the petitioners at Bombay for extending grant-in-aid is open for consideration as and when financial position improves and it formulates policy to grant-in-aid to such un-aided Schools. This decision, therefore, reveals that the word "permanent" against which grievance has been made by the petitioners does not have any significance after said Division Bench judgment and after Government Resolution dated
20.07.2009.
Accordingly, we direct the respondents to delete that word "permanent" from the Order of Recognition given to the respective petitioners. Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.