Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1943 (BOM)

Choulwar Edn. Society v. State of Maharashtra

2006-11-29

D.D.SINHA, R.V.MORE

body2006
D. D. SINHA, J.:- Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Khade, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner-Society was granted permission to run the School on no grant basis vide order dt:7-4-1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur. It is submitted that - since the date of permission - the School in question i.e. Swami Sitaramdas Maharaj Vidyalaya, Shioni (Bhondki) is functioning effectively. It is contended that, as per the policy of the Government, if the permission is granted on 'no grant basis' and if the School is functioning well, at a later point of time, considering eligibility of such institution by the State Government, such School or institution can be admitted to grant. It is contended that, so far as the School run by the petitioner-Society is concerned, though the permission was granted to run the said school on 'no grant basis', however, in-spite of various representations made by the petitioner to the State Government to admit the School in question to grant-in-aid, the request of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the permission granted to the petitioner-institution was on 'permanent no-grant basis'. 3. Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order/communication dt:7 -4-1998 whereby permission is granted to the School clearly demonstrates that said permission is on 'no grant basis' and not on 'permanent no grant basis' and therefore, the exception which is carved out by the State Government for not considering the claim of the petitioner for giving grant-in-aid is impermissible in law and also against the policy of the State Government applicable in this regard. 4. Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively contended that the State Government though granted permission to other institutions such as Master Noor Mohammad Urdu High School, Kamptee, Sant Jagnade High School, Old Bagadganj, Nagpur, Maa Kashidevi High School, Bharat Vidyalaya, Shende Nagar, Nagpur, Swecchande Vidyalaya, Mandwa, Tal. Bhivapur, Millat High School, Shanti Nagar, Nagpur, Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyalaya, Wadi, Nagpur, Latadevi High School, Dudhala, Tal. Mauda, Natthuji Dangare High School Parsodi, Tal. Kalmeshwar etc., to whom the State Government has granted permission on 'permanent no grant' basis. However, at a later point of time all the Schools were admitted to grant-in-aid. Bhivapur, Millat High School, Shanti Nagar, Nagpur, Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyalaya, Wadi, Nagpur, Latadevi High School, Dudhala, Tal. Mauda, Natthuji Dangare High School Parsodi, Tal. Kalmeshwar etc., to whom the State Government has granted permission on 'permanent no grant' basis. However, at a later point of time all the Schools were admitted to grant-in-aid. It is contended that even if it is presumed that permission granted by the State Government to the School run by the petitioner is on 'permanent no grant' basis, even then-since the Schools referred to hereinabove are admitted to grant-in-aid though permission granted was on 'permanent no grant' basis, the petitioner-Society is also entitled to get the grant-in-aid in respect of the School in question run by the petitioner-Society. However, refusal on the part of the State Government to consider the claim of the petitioner to admit the School in question to the grant-in-aid is discriminatory and therefore, appropriate direction in this regard be given to the State Government. 5. Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision dt:8-4-2005 given by this Court in Writ Petition No.13S- of 2003, Gajpal Udgave Trust and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Department of Education, Mumbai and Others, particularly the observations made by the Division Bench in para nos.4 and 6 of the Judgment as well as another Order dated 7th December, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.5233 of 2005, Annabhau Sathe Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Mandai Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other. 6. So far as the decision of this Court in the case of Gajpal Udgave Trust is concerned, the Division Bench, in para 4, has observed thus: "In response to the writ petition, reply affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Education Officer. In paragraph 12 of the reply affidavit, it is stated that as per the policy formulated by the State Government where the applicants were prepared to run secondary school on no-grant basis, such proposal were considered on priority basis for granting permission. It is further stated that the State Government shall formulate the policy to sanction grant-in-aid to the needy unaided secondary schools. It is further stated that the State Government shall formulate the policy to sanction grant-in-aid to the needy unaided secondary schools. As and when the financial position of the Government improves, permission, granted on unaided basis shall be considered as per the policy." Similarly, the observations in para 6 read thus: "In other words, the expression "Permanent no grant basis" used in the permission dated 2nd June, 1999 does not mean denial of grant permanently but subject to consideration of grant-in-aid in accordance with the law and the policy that may be formulated by the State Government on improvement of the State's financial condition and other relevant circumstances." 7. Mrs. Khade, Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, disputed the fact that the permission granted by the State Government to the School of the petitioner was on no grant basis. She has specifically submitted that the State Government vide Government Resolution dt.17th March, 1998 granted permission to the School of the petitioner on 'permanent no grant' basis. However, the Deputy Director of Education, while communicating decision of the State Government dated 17th March, 1998 to the petitioner vide communication dt:7-41998, has inadvertently mentioned in the said communication that the permission granted by the State Government is on 'no grant basis' instead of using the word 'permanent no grant'. It is, therefore, contended that the above referred contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner are not consistent with the record. 8. Mr. Khade, Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner-Society has given an undertaking to the State Government that the Society shall not claim grant-in-aid in future. It is also contended that giving permission on a 'permanent no grant basis' is a policy decision of the State Government and therefore, the individuals/institutions/Schools have no legal right to insist that the State Government should provide grant-in-aid to such institutions which are given permission by the State Government as per the policy applicable in this regard on 'permanent no grant basis'. It is, therefore, contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes giving of the undertaking by the petitioner-Society to the Government as contended by the Assistant Government Pleader. 10. It is, therefore, contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes giving of the undertaking by the petitioner-Society to the Government as contended by the Assistant Government Pleader. 10. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the Government Resolution/decision dated 17th March, 1998 as well as the communication dt:7-4-1998 addressed to the petitioner, issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur. Perusal of these two documents clearly demonstrates that the permission granted by the State Government to the School of the petitioner is on 'permanent no grant', however, merely because the communication dt:7-4-1998 is issued by the Deputy Director of Education, wherein it is mentioned that permission granted by the State Government to the School run by the petitioner is on 'no grant basis' , is obviously a mistake committed by the Deputy Director of Education. At any rate, that by itself shall not create any right in favour of the petitioner to canvass that permission granted by the State Government was on 'no grant basis' and not on 'permanent no grant basis'. It is, therefore, evident that the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the basis of the communication dt:7-4-1998 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, which does not correctly demonstrate the decision of the State Government dt: 17 -3-1998 and therefore, it is difficult for us to accept the said contention. 11. So far as the policy of grant of permission to the Schools/Colleges/institutions in the State of Maharashtra is concerned, there are two categories such as : on 'no grant' basis and on 'permanent no grant basis. The procedure also demonstrates that if the permission granted is on 'no grant' basis, such institutions are eligible to be considered for grant-in-aid if they fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed by the State Government in this regard. So far as the permission granted on 'permanent no grant' basis is concerned, such institutions shall not be eligible for grant-in-aid in future. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of submissions of applications to the State Government seeking permission to start the School/College, the applicants are required to state whether permission sought is on 'permanent no grant' basis or 'no grant' basis. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of submissions of applications to the State Government seeking permission to start the School/College, the applicants are required to state whether permission sought is on 'permanent no grant' basis or 'no grant' basis. If the permission sought is on 'permanent no grant' basis, such applicant is fully aware that he is not legally entitled to claim grant-in-aid in respect of the institution which is granted permission on 'permanent no grant' basis. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the Assistant Government Pleader that under the policy of the Government it is necessary for the applicant, who has applied for grant of permission on 'permanent no grant' basis, to submit an affidavit along with his application stating therein that such applicant shall not claim any aid or grant from the State Government in respect of such institution in future. It is, therefore, evident that the Societies/Institutions which are granted permission on 'permanent no grant' basis shall not be eligible to receive any grant-in-aid in future. 12. So far as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gajpal Udgave Trust (cited supra) is concerned, perusal of the observations made by the Division Bench in para 4 will demonstrate that the Deputy Director of Education in the affidavit filed before the Division Bench in the said Writ Petition had stated that, as per the policy formulated by the State Government, where the applicants were prepared to run secondary school on 'no grant basis', such proposals were considered on priority basis for granting permission. It is, therefore, evident that the question of considering entitlement of such institutions which were granted permission on 'permanent no grant basis' was not the issue involved in the said Writ Petition and the stand taken by the Deputy Director makes it clear that the proposal for considering providing of grant-in-aid by formulating policy would apply only to the category where the permission is granted by the State Government on 'no grant basis' and not on 'permanent no grant basis'. In our considered view, therefore, the observations made in para 4 have no bearing in respect of the issue in question. In our considered view, therefore, the observations made in para 4 have no bearing in respect of the issue in question. Simi1arly, the expression “permanent no grant basis” considered by the Division Bench and the observations made in this regard, as reflected in para 6 of the Judgment, are made necessarily keeping in view the stand taken by the Deputy Director of Education as reflected in the affidavit filed in the said Writ Petition. However, the Division Bench did not consider competency of the State Government to formulate the policy or granting permission on 'permanent no grant' basis nor did it consider eligibility and entitlement of such institutions to claim grant-in-aid to those institutions who were granted permission on 'permanent no grant' basis and in absence thereof, the said observations in para 6, in our view, are also of no help to the petitioner. 13. So far as the other decision of this Court in the case of Annabhau Sathe Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Mandal (cited supra) is concerned, the issue was not whether the State Government was legally entitled to evolve the policy nor to provide grant to the institutions who were granted permission on 'permanent no grant' basis and in absence thereof, for similar reasons, the observations made by the Division Bench in the said Judgment, in our view, do not further the case of the petitioner. 14. Before we part with the order, we want to express that the Societies or the organizations who are willing to come forward to start Schools/Colleges and other institutions on 'permanent no grant' basis and because of their sound financial status, are ready and willing to impart education to the public at large through such institutions without expecting any financial aid from the State Government, such institutions, in our view, would not only serve the public interest, but would also reduce burden on the public exchequer and at the same time, would provide education to the people at large. In the backdrop of these circumstances, the policy of the State Government to grant permission on 'permanent no grant' basis is in the larger public interest; at the same time, there is no legal right vested in such institutions to claim grant-in-aid since the permission obtained by the institution and granted by the State Government is on 'permanent no grant' basis. 15. In the instant case, Mr. 15. In the instant case, Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there are as many as 40 institutions/Schools/Colleges (names of some of them are mentioned hereinabove) which were though initially granted permission by the State Government on 'permanent no grant' basis, at a later point of time, were admitted tot he grant-in-aid. However, the institution of the petitioner-Society is though similarly circumstanced, it has been given different treatment and therefore, for this limited purpose, it is prayed that the petitioner be permitted to make a representation to the State Government. It is further prayed that the State Government may be directed to verify these aspects on its own merits, according to law as well as policy of the State Government and take a decision within a stipulated period. 16. We have already concluded that if the permission granted by the State Government is on 'permanent no grant' basis, there is no legal right to claim grant-in-aid. However, since it is not known whether the above referred institutions which were granted permission on 'permanent no grant' basis were admitted to grant-in-aid, therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation to the State Government for this limited purpose. If such a representation is made, we expect the State Government to take a decision after considering the policy of the State Government, observations made by us in the present order, according to law, on its own merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.