(1) 90wp4326.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 90 WRIT PETITION NO. 4326 OF 2024 Ravindra Bajrang Alias Ghotu Bhanawat And Another ….Petitioners VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others …..Respondents Mr. B. R. Warma, Advocate for the Petitioners Mrs. N. B. Kamble, AGP for the respondents/State CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. This Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: A] By issuing writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or directions or orders in the like nature, impugned order dated 12-05-2022 passed by R-2/Dy. Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra, appointing administrator for administering school “Prathamik/Secondary” and Uccha Madhyamik Ashramshala, Maudkhed, Dist. Nanded” may pleased be quashed and set aside. B] The R-3/Competent authority be directed to review and reconsider grievances of complaint and explanation of Petitioners and to pass lawful orders u/s 3 of Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 by following principles of natural justice. 2. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners by relying on the order passed by this Court in writ Petition No. 11062/2023 submits that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:39613-DB (2) 90wp4326.24 3. Learned AGP strenuously opposed the Petition stating that there is dispute going on between the Management and therefore, it was necessary to appoint the Administrator. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned AGP and also perused the grounds raised in the Petition, annextures thereto and order dated 10-11-2023 passed in writ Petition No. 11062/2023. 5. In the said order this Court has observed as follows: 11.Obviously, neither the impugned order nor the affidavit in reply expressly mention as to under which provision the impugned order/communication has been issued for appointing the administrator. In the absence of which, since it is a matter regarding appointment of administrator over an ashram school governed by the Code, all such powers could only be traced to clause 3.2. Clause 3.2 of the Code, made available to us is in Marathi, and roughly translated, reads as under:- “3.2 Appointment of Administrator As per the provisions of the Maharashtra Educational Institutes (Management) Act, 1976 or the rules, government decisions, orders issued by the Government from time to time in this regard, Assistant Director/Assistant Commissioner (Group A/B), may appoint an administrator or a board of administration comprising of District Social Welfare Officer (Group A/B), Authority running Excellent Ashram Schools or the Principal or the Administrative Board/Committee comprising more than one member or the Authority appointed by the Government for following reasons:- i) Disputes or disagreements in the management of a government- recognised registered organization ii) Not providing necessary physical facilities to the students. 2 of 5 (3) 90wp4326.24 iii) Academic loss of the students due to internal disputes or disagreements within the institution. iv) Disagreement or disputes between the institution and the Ashram School staff. v) Educational loss to students and staff due to mismanagement in the institution/ ashram school vi) Institution/Ashram/Management not complying with the rules and regulations of the government vii) Difficulty for the institution/management to run the day-to-day operations of the ashram school viii) Neglect of the institution/management towards the ashram school, staff and the students. ix) Not making adequate arrangements for accommodation, food, breakfast etc. of the students x) Not protecting students, not taking care of their health, starving of the students, physically and mentally abusing the students xi) Financial exploitation of staff, students and parents xii) Embezzlement of the government funds, amounts 12. A plain reading of this provision clearly shows that it is only the Assistant Director or the Assistant Commissioner (Group A / B) or District Social Welfare Officer (Group A / B), who have been empowered to appoint the administrator which can be the officers of the management running an ashram school or a board consisting of headmaster and one or more of the members or a government nominee. The impugned communication issued by the Respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 is in the reverse order. The secretary of the Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department has by the impugned communication appointed the respondent no. 2 who is the Regional Deputy Director as the administrator. Irrespective of the sustainability of the reason for invoking the power under clause 3.2, when this provision expressly requires and empowers only the specific authorities to pass the orders, the impugned communication / order is clearly sans any power. 3 of 5 (4) 90wp4326.24 13. Again, even if the afore-mentioned aspect is overlooked for the sake of arguments, clause 3.2 lays down 12 instances as a sine qua non for invoking the power for appointment of an administrator. Ex facie, the allegations about a teacher having worked at two places to the knowledge of the headmaster is a circumstance not contemplated in any of these clauses. Even the impugned communication does not expressly mention as to under which of these categories alleged misconduct of the teacher and the headmaster would fall. Even the affidavit in reply is conspicuously silent and does not seek to address this issue. 14. If such is the state-of-affairs, where the impugned order appointing the administrator has originated in the office of the respondent no.1, who had no power to pass it by resorting to clause 3.2 and when the reasons which had prompted him to pass the order cannot fit in to the categories of the instances covered by that clause, the impugned order, besides being without power, is not sustainable on merits. 6. In that case also the Petitioner-Management running a Residential School (Aashram School) governed by Aashram School Code. 7. Since this Court has already taken a view that appointment of Administrator cannot be made by Respondent No. 1, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. The writ Petition is therefore allowed. 9. The impugned order dated 12-05-2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. The Respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders by following legal provisions. 4 of 5 (5) 90wp4326.24 11. We make it clear that even if the Petitioners take charge, no policy decision shall be taken. [ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] VishalK/90wp4326.24 5 of 5