1 WP-4331-15.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4331 OF 2015 Gautam Dada Vachanalaya Mandal, Kaudgaon, Taluka Paranda, District Osmanabad Through Its Secretary Suresh Gautam Kamble, Age 46 years, Occu. Agri. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Higher and Technical Education Departments Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 2. The Director of Libraries Directorate of Libraries, Maharashtra State, Nagar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 023 3. The Assistant Director of Libraries Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad Savarkar Chowk, Samartha Nagar Aurangabad 4. The Assistant Charity Commissioner Osmanabad, District Osmanabad .. Respondents Mr. Sanjay A. Wakure, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. B. V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for Respondents CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 10-07-2026 JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2026:BHC-AUG:31079 2 WP-4331-15.odt 2. The petitioner has raised the following prayer; “B. By issuing writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or directions in like nature, the impugned Order dated 25 August 2014 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Higher and Technical Education Department, Maharashtra State, in Appeal No.84 of 2014 and the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the learned In-charge Director of Libraries, Directorate of Libraries, Maharashtra State bearing Outward No.32/SMR/2013-14/16434- 17002, may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 3. The petitioner is a registered trust, operating public library. While receiving regular grant-in-aid from the State. Pursuant to directive dated 28.12.2011, the Revenue Department conducted a verification drive of public libraries across the State between 21.05.2012 and 25.05.2012, during which certain structural shortcomings were allegedly noticed in the petitioner's operations. 4. Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice dated 30.03.2013, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation clarifying that the alleged errors were either mistakenly recorded or had been rectified. Subsequently, on 13.05.2013, during inspection conducted, recorded that the petitioner library was functioning satisfactorily, supported by certificates issued by local village authorities. However, ignoring this positive assessment, respondent No. 2 issued impugned order dated 31.12.2013, 3 WP-4331-15.odt cancelling the petitioner’s recognition without affording a proper opportunity of a hearing. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.84 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Minister which came to be dismissed by the order under challenge. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the orders under challenge are perverse and rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice. The initial verification from was a generalized drive and any minor deficiencies found were immediately cured by the petitioner through subsequent representations. The Inspection Officer, upon evaluating the library in May 2013, certified that the library was functioning satisfactorily. 7. It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 acted outside the scope of fair play by completely ignoring this positive report and cancelling the recognition without granting a personal hearing. The Hon'ble Minister conducted an expedited mass hearing of several appeals from the Aurangabad Region on a given single day, resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner. 8. In support of the contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court in 4 WP-4331-15.odt the case of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vachnalaya Library v. The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 1576 of 2014, dated 23.07.2014, wherein categorically set aside a similar de- recognition order. 9. Per contra, Learned A.G.P. has supported the order under challenge and submitted that by the noting the deficiencies in the Petitioner-libarary, the de-recognition order came to be passed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the litigating sides, and upon perusal of the material placed on record, indicates an undisputed fact that while the initial verification drive in May 2012 pointed out certain administrative errors, a subsequent field inspection was conducted by the Inspection Officer in May 2013. That inspection report unequivocally recorded that the petitioner library was functioning satisfactorily. Despite this clear and positive finding by its own field officer, the Respondent No. 2 proceeded to issue the order dated 31.12.2013, cancelling the recognition in total disregard of its own records. 11. It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that an authority cannot act in total ignorance with the positive reports submitted by its own officials. In the present case, the cancellation order is entirely silent in relation to the inspection 5 WP-4331-15.odt report dated 13.05.2013 was overlooked. Further, the statutory framework governing withdrawal mandates strict compliance with the rules of natural justice. 12. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vachnalaya Library (supra), where this Court, dealing with an identical cancellation order dated 31.12.2013, held that where the procedure contemplated under the rules is bypassed and principles of natural justice are violated, the order becomes legally untenable and must be set aside. The ratio of the said judgment applies with full force to the present case. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”. 14. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. 15. No order as to the costs. [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGE rrd