LAWS(BOM)-2009-6-96

SADHANA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 08, 2009
SADHANA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioners challenge the order passed by respondent No. 1 taking over the management of the school and also challenge further order whereby extension to the appointment of Administrator was granted.

(3.) Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Educational Co-operative Society, registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Petitioner No. 2 is a School run by petitioner No. 1 - Society at village Rui in Yavatmal District. Respondent No. 1 had accorded sanction for running said school. The school has been receiving grant-in-aid right from 1965. A Junior College with Arts and Commerce Faculty is attached to this school and the school also conducts M.C.V.C. Courses-The said M.C.V.C. Course also receives grant-in-aid. It is contended by the petitioner that all facilities have been made available in the said school. The school was being run right from 1964 up to year 2006 smoothly and there was not even single complaint against the school or management of any misappropriation or mismanagement. There is also no dispute amongst the members of the Managing Committee except that one change report was pending with the Assistant Charity Commissioner, which has now been accepted. The petitioners submit that two members of the Managing Committee, however, were aggrieved by the acceptance of the change report and they have been acting against the interest of petitioner No. 1 and also the school. On the basis of the false complaint made in the year 2005 against the petitioners, an inspection of the school was conducted and no major defect or shortfall was found in the working of the school. Minor deficiencies were immediately removed. It is alleged further that the aggrieved members were very close to one influential political person and they managed to issue a false and baseless show cause notice to the petitioner through respondent No.