ORDER 1. As common questions are involved in all these petitions and as challenge made in these petitions are also to similar action of the State Government they are being heard and disposed of with this common order. 2. All the petitioners are society registered under the provision of M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 and it is stated that in the year 2001 State Government issued certain directions to the District Education Officer to inspect the Institute being run and managed by the petitioners' Society and thereafter, to hand them over to the local authorities for their functioning and management. It is the case of the petitioners that all the institutes run by the petitioners' societies were taken over after following the due process as directed by the State Government. After the institutes were taken over, now after two years the orders of taking over is being cancelled and therefore, petitioners are before this Court assailing the action of the State Government in cancelling the order passed with regard to taking over of the institutes. Even though various grounds have been raised in the petition and the respondents State Government have also resisted the claim made by the petitioner. It is seen from the records that a Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.3.2007 passed in WP No. 5306/ 05 (s) has considered the same question and similar action taken by the State Government in cancelling the earlier order of taking over of a school namely one Saraswati Girls Higher Secondary School Gorrni, District Bhind same questions as are involved in these petition were considered by the learned bench in the aforesaid case and in para 7 it has been observed as under : "From the record it is clear that before taking over the Girls School various aspects have been considered by the Government and after approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister the order was passed and vide another order dated 29.7.2002 the word "Shashanadeen Karte Huye" (taking under the Management of the State Government) has been deleted from the order dated 22.3.2002. No reason has been assigned in passing the subsequent order. The respondents in the return and the additional return have not assigned any reason that subsequently under what circumstances the order with regard to taking over of the school has been modified by the State Government and at what level the decision was taken. No reason has been assigned in passing the subsequent order. The respondents in the return and the additional return have not assigned any reason that subsequently under what circumstances the order with regard to taking over of the school has been modified by the State Government and at what level the decision was taken. As mentioned above, the earlier decision was taken after the approval of Hon 'ble the Chief Minister and after discussing the proposal at administrative level" Thereafter, certain judgments of the Supreme Court are taken note of in para 9 by Bench then the Court has held as under: "On the basis of the above principle of law laid down by Hon 'ble the Supreme Court, in my opinion, the subsequent order passed by the Government with regard to deleting the word "taking over of the School" dated 29.7.2002 is arbitrary and illegal because no reasons have been assigned by the respondents in passing the aforesaid order neither it has been mentioned that what were the circumstances by which the earlier orders have been reviewed nor the relevant record to this effect has been produced. Neither any reasons have been mentioned in the return." 3. Finally it has been held that the action of the State Government is unsustainable and the petition was allowed and the orders pertaining to cancellation of the earlier order passed for taking over of the institute were quashed and the petition was disposed of with the following directions as contained in para 11 : "Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions : (I) That, the orders impugned, Annexure P-1 dated 14.11.2005 Annexure P-1/A dated 24.11.2004 Annexure P-8 dated 29.7.2002 and Annexure R-17 dated 7.6.2002 with regard to cancellation of taking over of the school by the respondents are hereby quashed. (II) The respondent-State is at liberty to pass appropriate order with regard to absorption of the staff members and teachers of the school in pursuance to the directions issued by the Government as per the circular of the State Government dated 11.11.2003 and 21st March 2002 and other circulars issued by the State Government in this regard, as per law. (II) The respondent-State is at liberty to pass appropriate order with regard to absorption of the staff members and teachers of the school in pursuance to the directions issued by the Government as per the circular of the State Government dated 11.11.2003 and 21st March 2002 and other circulars issued by the State Government in this regard, as per law. (III) Necessary committee be constituted by the Government to this effect and the orders of absorption of the staff, members and teachers be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a· certified copy of this order. (IV) Staff, members and teachers. appointed as per the orders passed by the Chief Municipal Officer including the petitioner will be permitted to continue in service upto the period when the Government will pass the orders of absorption in pursuance to the aforesaid order and the salary of the petitioner and other staff members and teachers be paid by the Government accordingly arrears of salary be also paid by respondents No. 1 and 2. (V) No order as to cost." 4. Shri A.K. Chitley senior counsel tried to emphasis that the dispute involved in these petitions stand covered by the decision rendered by this Court in WP No. 5306/05 (s) he has also pointed out that earlier also in WP No. 1217/04 this Court had examined the question and has found that the action of the State Government is not correct, Shri Chitley, senior counsel argues that as the matter has been decided by a decision rendered by a bench of this Court petitioners are also entitled to similar relief and for direction contained in WP No. 5306/05 (s) is liable to be issued in the present case also. Similar orders were passed again by this Court in WP No. 605/06 on 13.3.2007 also about a week back, Shri Chitley submits that these petitions are also liable to be disposed of on similar lines. 5. Shri S.B. Mishra Additional Advocate General, for the State Government tried to point out that certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act have not been considered by this Court in the earlier cases, and therefore, it was submitted by him that the earlier judgment are not binding. 5. Shri S.B. Mishra Additional Advocate General, for the State Government tried to point out that certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act have not been considered by this Court in the earlier cases, and therefore, it was submitted by him that the earlier judgment are not binding. I am afraid this proposition cannot be accepted, the question involved in this petition has already been considered and decided by a bench of this Court in WP No. 5306/05 (s) and in WP No. 605/05 (s). That being so there is no reason for taking a different view in the present case when the question involved in all these petitions are similar to one decided by this Court in WP No. 5306/05 (s). However Shri S.B. Mishra, invites my attention of an order passed by another bench of this Court on 17.10.2006 in WP No. 122/05 and tried to argue that petitions similar in nature have been dismissed by another Single Bench of this Court and this order has been upheld in WA No. 474/2006 decided on 20.11.2006. 6. Shri Chitley has already produced copies of the orders dated 17.10.2006 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WP No. 122/2005 and order dated 20.11.2006 in WA No. 474/06 passed by a Division Bench and submitted that the facts of those and these cases are entirely different. It is seen that when WP No. 5306/05 (S) and WP No. 605/05 (S) were decided by a bench of this Court on 13.3.2007, these facts was not brought to the notice of the Court. However a perusal of the order dated 17.10.2006 passed in WP No. 122/05 indicated that in that case the institute in question was receiving grant in aid and prayer made in that petition that a direction be issued to the State Government for taking over of the institute, but in the present cases the institute is already taken over by the State Government and order challenged in this petition is regarding cancellation of the order of taking over, it was held by a bench of this Court in WP No. 122/05, that the petitioners do not have a vested right of absorption when the matter was considered by a Division Bench in WA No. 474/06 also, it was held by Division Bench that the society cannot compel the Government to takeover the management. It is seen that the earlier case was decided on different facts inasmuch the institute in that case was receiving 100% grant in aid and the institute only wanted that a decision to take over be enforced, in the present case, the petitioners are not receiving any grant in aid and in their cases decision has already been taken to take over the institute and it is the order of cancellation of this decision which is challenged. That being so I am of the considered view that the judgment rendered by a bench of this Court in WP No. 122/05 and WA No. 474/06 are on different facts and do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present cases is fully covered by the decision rendered by this Court in WP No. 5306/05 (s) and WP No. 605/05 (S). Accordingly these petitions are allowed the action impugned and order passed challenged in these petitions are quashed respondents are directed to take action in the matter of the petitioners' societies. also in accordance with directives passed by a bench of this Court in WP No. 5306/05 (s) Ram Bahadur Singh Bahdauriya v. State of M.P. and others, as contained in para 11 of the said order and the directives issued in para 11 of the said order shall be made applicable in the case of the petitioners' institute also and the claim of the petitioners' institute shall also be decided in accordance with the said directives. Petitions stand allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.