WARANA EDUCATION SOCIETY SAGAON Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an educational institution that claims to have been established in the year 1968 at Sagaon, Taluka Shirala, District Sangli. The purpose and aim of the society is to start schools in the vicinity for spreading education in rural areas. The petitioner is running a school at village Kandoor, Taluka Shirala, District Sangli, which was started with the permission from the Government and even grant-in-aid was given. Initially the school was having classes upto 8th standard and gradually classes upto 11th standard were started. The school is being run under the name of Shree Datta Vidyalaya. The population of the village has increased. There is another village by name Punawat at a distance of about 1-1/2 K.M from the village Kandoor. The students of that village used to take education in the school in question. From the academic year 1990, the Deputy Director and Director of the Education-officers of respondent No. 1, granted permission to respondent No. 6 to run a school at village Kandoor from the academic year 1990, which according to the petitioner, could not have been granted as the petitioner society was already operating in that area. A reference is being made by the petitioner to the policy of the respondent State, which contemplates that permission for a new school within a radius of 5 K.M. of the existing school cannot be granted by the authorities. The said policy is annexed at Exhibit D to the petition. It is further averred by the petitioner that due to the establishment of two high schools i.e. girls high schools by respondent No. 6 in the very village and another Shikshan Sanstha in the adjoining villages, there was adverse effect on the high school run by the petitioner as some strength of the students of the petitioner's school was reduced. In the year 2004-05, the 5th standard had to be closed down for want of sufficient students and great prejudice was caused to the interest of the petitioner society. The further grievance of the petitioner is that on the one hand the Government granted permission for starting two high schools in violation of its policy and on the other hand, the petitioner's application for starting the high school at Shirala Khurd was rejected on 28th August, 1999. This action of the respondents is thus arbitrary and discriminatory. Respondent No. 6, somewhere in the year 2004, started taking steps to obtain permission to convert its girls high school at village Kandoor into a co-educational high school so that even boy-students could be admitted and this application was under consideration of the competent authority, against which the petitioner filed various representations, but a report was submitted by the educational department of Sangli Zilla Paishad to the Education Officer on 29th August 2005. On the Page 1267 basis of this report, respondent No. 5 came to the conclusion that permission should not be granted and respondent No. 6 was informed accordingly vide its letter dated 19th September 2005. However, again on the request of respondent No. 6, in a most arbitrary manner, permission was granted to it, vide letter dated 4th October 2005 (Exhibit "H" to the petition) to convert Ambika Girls school into a co-educational school. It was stated that permission was being granted in accordance with the resolution of the Government dated 28th November 2003. The petitioner again made a representation on 27th October 2006 alleging that the said permission was granted under political influence and was against the very policy framed by the Government itself. To put it precisely, according to the petitioner, permission which was declined earlier was granted subsequently and objections of the petitioner were not appropriately considered by the competent authorities.

(2.) Having failed to get any relief at the hands of the respondent- authorities, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the order passed by respondent authorities on 8th January 2007.

(3.) The reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 stating that the order confirming the letter dated 4th October 2005 and stay order dated 7th June 2006 are neither arbitrary nor in any way opposed to public policy. The stand of this respondent was that the Government Resolution dated 28th November 2003 intends to give permission for conversion of schools into co-educational institute from exclusively boys or girls schools, and thus in fact was implemented by passing the impugned order. According to this respondent, there are six villages surrounding the school run by this respondent where there are primary schools and there are 230 students taking education in 4th standard and there are 3 secondary schools, including the petitioner's school, and the petitioner had not at any point of time raised any objection in that behalf and the objections now taken are motivated and mala fide.