MARUTI DADA PATIL SARVANGIN Vs. HANUMAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant sought permission to start a new secondary school for girls in Nagaj. On 29.5.1999, permission was granted to the appellant to run a co-education school. The first respondent, who was already running a secondary school at Nagaj, challenged the grant of such permission. The Bombay High Court, by its judgment dated 19.7.2000, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 29.5.1999 with a direction to consider the appellant s application by giving a hearing to the appellant as well as the first respondent and then pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the third respondent heard the parties and by order dated 20.4.2001, cancelled the permission granted to the appellant. However, later, the State Government by order dated 20.7.2001 withdrew the cancellation.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent again approached the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 854/2002. During the pendency of the said petition, the district level Committee reconsidered the application and passed a resolution dated 10.7.2002 recommending the grant of permission. However, on 9.8.2002, the High Court allowed the second writ petition filed by the first respondent and set aside the order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the Government whereby the cancellation dated 20.4.2001 was withdrawn. The order of the High Court is challenged by the appellant in this appeal by special leave. On 20.1.2003, while granting leave, this Court stayed the order of the High Court and permitted the appellant to run the school in accordance with the regulations.

(3.) The resultant position is that the appellant, who was granted permission to run the school on 21.5.1999, has been continuously running the secondary school for about eight years, with short periods of cancellation. When the matter was heard today, learned Counsel appearing for the State Government submitted that between the period when the appellant originally sought permission and now, the demand for schools in the area has grown and in fact the area requires more schools and the State has no objection for the continuation of the appellant s school.