V.G. DAGA, J.:- Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Heard rival parties. Perused petition and rival affidavits. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondent-State of Maharashtra to grant permission to run classes for VIII to X Standards on no grant basis from the Academic Session 2000-2001. 3. The factual matrix reveals that petitioner Society made application on 3.3.1997 for grant of permission to run School, consisting of classes VIII to X standard, at village Toranwada, Tahsil Chikhli, District Buldana. 4. The petitioner Society since did not hear anything about the fate of their application, another application dated 28.8.1998 came to be made. Petitioner, finding no response even to their second application, filed Writ Petition No.3332 of 2000. 5. When the above petition was listed on 6.11.2000, before the Division Bench presided over by Honourable the Chief Justice Shri. B. P. Singh (as he then was), learned AGP appearing for State Government made a statement that matter was under consideration and final decision was likely to be taken shortly. On such statement having been made, the said petition was adjourned for two weeks in order to enable the learned AGP to make statement. 6. It appears that the State Government, thereafter, granted permission in favour of respondent no.5 and rejected the application of the petitioner Society. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner Society has filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to direct the respondent-State of Maharashtra to grant permission to run School in its favour by cancelling permission granted in favour of the respondent no.5. 7. Respondents no.1 to 4 have filed reply on affidavit. They have averred that permission in favour of the respondent no.5 has been granted after following due procedure. It is contended that petitioner Society failed to remove deficiencies as pointed by the Block Development Officer in his inspection report. Respondents have averred that permission in favour of the respondent no.5 has been granted after following due procedure. 8. Petitioner has filed rejoinder dated 10.1.2005, wherein, it is claimed by the petitioner Society that there were no shortcomings and permission in favour of the respondent no.5 was granted illegally. 9. During the course of hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has filed Minutes of Order dated 12.12.2006. 8. Petitioner has filed rejoinder dated 10.1.2005, wherein, it is claimed by the petitioner Society that there were no shortcomings and permission in favour of the respondent no.5 was granted illegally. 9. During the course of hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has filed Minutes of Order dated 12.12.2006. It is stated therein that the proposal submitted by the petitioner Society was recommended by the District Level Committee and the State Level Committee, whereas the proposal submitted by respondent no.5 was recommended only by the District Level Committee and that it was not recommended by the State Level Committee. It is further stated that the State Government thereafter constituted Cabinet Sub-Committee to select a proposal for grant of permission and the said Cabinet Sub-committee approved the proposal of respondent no.5. 10. It is fairly stated in the Minutes of Order that the Cabinet Sub-Committee has failed to record reasons justifying grant of permission to open school in favour of respondent no.S. It is further stated that based on the law laid down by this Court in Gram Vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandai Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in ( 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 776 ) and Dnyan Ganga Krida Aarogya Shikshan MandaI Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in ( 2003(2) Mh.L.J. 130 ), permission granted in favour of the respondent no.5 is liable to be set aside for want of reasons in support of grant of permission in favour of the respondent no.5 School. 11. This Court in Gram Vikas Shikshan Prasarak MandaI Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) formulated norms and standards for the establishment of new primary and secondary schools in the State. This Court directed certain basic considerations to be borne in mind. The considerations include existence of requisite infrastructure; applications for establishment of new schools ought to be processed and decided by a body of experts in transparent and objective manners; while granting new school care should be taken to avoid unhealthy competition etc. It is specifically laid down by this Court that the Committee while granting permission, shall record reasons in order to ensure that the grant is objective and transparent and higher judicial forum gets an opportunity to read the mind of the decision-making authority in the event of challenge in the Court of Law. 12. This Court in Dnyanganga Krida Arogya Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 12. This Court in Dnyanganga Krida Arogya Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) to which one of us (Y. C. Daga, J) is party, has held that it is obligatory on the part of the State Government prima facie to apply its mind and record its reasons for accepting or rejecting the recommendations of the District and/or State Level Committees. In that case, State Level Committee had made recommendations against petitioner Society and in favour of respondent-Society even through it had found that educational facilities were not available with respondent and recommendation of the District Level Committee was in favour of petitioner therein. The State Level Committee in the said case did not deal with recommendations of the District Level Committee in favour of petitioner. It was held that recommendations and reasons recorded by the State Level Committee to grant permission to respondent were based on extraneous material and were absolutely perverse and could not therefore be sustained. 13. Having noticed repeated attempts on the part of the State Government not to follow law laid down by this Court from time to time in the matter of grant of permission to open schools warranting stringent action against the State Government, the State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary to the School Education and Sports Department has filed undertaking dated 7.12.2006 before this Court stating therein that in future, the State Government shall follow all mandatory directions issued by this Court in the matter of grant of permission to start new schools as contained in Gram Vikas Shikshan Prasarak MandaI's case (supra). The affidavit filed and statements made therein are taken on record and the State Government is put on notice that in the event of breach of the undertaking, this Court will not hesitate to take stringent action against the erring Officials of the State. 14. In view of the said undertaking and statement made in the Minutes of Order and considering the grant of permission in breach of the law laid down by this Court in reported cases referred to herein above, we set aside the order of the respondent no. 1 granting permission to open School in favour of respondent no.5. 14. In view of the said undertaking and statement made in the Minutes of Order and considering the grant of permission in breach of the law laid down by this Court in reported cases referred to herein above, we set aside the order of the respondent no. 1 granting permission to open School in favour of respondent no.5. We direct the respondents no.1 to 4 to undertake fresh scrutiny of the proposals and complete the same as expeditiously as possible keeping in mind the parameters/law laid down by this Court in Gram Vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and Dnyan Ganga Krida Aarogya Shikshan Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra). Respondents no.1 to 4 are also directed to transfer all the students admitted in the classes VIII to X standards opened by the respondent no.5 Institution to new school to be opened from the Academic Session 2006-07 or any other adjoining school. It would also be obligatory on their part to permit the students to appear for the ensuing final examination from other school located in the adjoining area. The respondents no.1 to 4 are directed to issue suitable directions to the adjoining schools not to deny admission to the students or refuse them permission to appear for examination through their school. Rule made absolute for the reasons recorded herein as well as in terms of minutes of order dated 12.12.2006 with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.