WP.9609.2025.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9609 OF 2025 Anjuman Ittehadul Islam .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Ritesh R. Raut, Advocates for Petitioner.  Mr. Siddheshwar Kalel, for Respondent – State. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. RESERVED ON : JUNE 30, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 06, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Arjunwadkar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Kalel, learned AGP for Respondent - State. 2. Petitioner has filed present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur granting permission in favour of Respondent No.5 for commencement of an additional division of 5th standard for the academic year 2025 - 2026. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as well as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. Petitioner - Society runs Dr. Zakir Hussain Anglo Urdu High School and Junior College, Ajara 1 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc which was established in the year 1969 and receives grant-in-aid since in the year 1972. Petitioner institution is a 100% aided school and is running classes from 5th standard to 12th standard. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 issued Government Resolution (For short 'GR') dated 19.09.2019 appointing Respondent No.2 as the Competent Authority for granting permission in respect of starting additional divisions of 5th standard in primary schools and 8th standard in higher primary schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short the 'RTE Act') readwith the Rules of 2010. It is the further case of Petitioner that under the said GR, permission for additional division could not have been granted where an existing school education in offering education in the concerned standard was already available within the prescribed neighbourhood distance, so as to prevent attrition of students from the said school, thereby affecting the running of the shool. 5. Petitioner further states that Respondent No.1 thereafter issued GR dated 15.03.2024 in continuation and modification of the earlier policy again conferring powers on Respondent No.2 to grant permissions for starting 8th standard divisions to schools which were already running from 1st to 7th standard, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. 2 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc 6. It is the case of Petitioner that Respondent No.5 submitted a proposal on 06.02.2025 seeking permission for starting an additional division of 5th standard. Petitioner immediately raised an objection on 15.04.2025 before the Respondent No.3 contending that the proposal was hit by the geographical distance criteria, since the Petitioner’s school was already running 5th standard class and situated within the prohibited neighbourhood distance. Further a similar proposal of Respondent No.5 had earlier been rejected on the ground of geographical distance and therefore, a fresh proposal on the same basis was not maintainable. 7. Despite the objection raised by Petitioner, Respondent No.3 called for a report through the Extension Officer, Ajara. The Extension Officer submitted his report recommending the proposal by observing that Petitioner school was situated beyond 1 km, ignoring the objection raised by the Petitioner and the actual geographical position / distance between the schools. 8. Respondent No.4 thereafter forwarded the proposal further, though on an earlier occasion Respondent No.4 himself noted that there existed a school within 1 km and that grant of permission would not be correct. Report from the Public Works Department (PWD) was later obtained, which was contradictory and confusing, as it mentioned both short distance of 0.850 km and long distance of 1.2 km, though the Act and the GR contemplate only the prescribed neighbourhood 3 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc distance and not any such concept of short and long distance. 9. However Respondent No.2, by order dated 17.06.2025 granted permission to Respondent No.5 for commencement of 5th standard class for the academic year 2025-2026 without granting any hearing to Petitioner and without considering the objections raised by the Petitioner or the earlier contrary material on record. Petitioner has therefore challenged the impugned order as being arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective Advocates and learned AGP at the bar and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. Submissions made by the Advocates have received due consideration of the Court. 11. Learned Advocate for Petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside since the same has been passed in breach of the prescribed policy and without considering the objection of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s school is already functioning within the neighbourhood, that the proposal of Respondent No.5 is expressly barred under the GR dated 19.09.2019 and that the Competent Authority failed to act judicially. It is further submitted that the order is vitiated by non-application of mind and violation of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted to Petitioner despite a specific objection. 4 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc 12. Respondent No.2 has opposed the Petition by filing reply and contended that the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 is legal, valid and supported by reasons. It is contended that the Petitioner has misread the GRs dated 19.09.2019 and 15.03.2024 and that the distance clause is not applicable in the manner as suggested by the Petitioner. He would further contends that the proposal was properly considered, the relevant reports were obtained and the impugned order was passed after due application of mind under the RTE Act, and the applicable Rules. It is further contended that the PWD report is not a conclusive document exhibiting distance criteria and that the real consideration is the strength and convenience of students. 13. The controversy before the Court, as raised by the Petitioner is in a narrow compass. Petitioner is running a school and is aggrieved by the grant of permission by the Competent Authority to Respondent No.5 - a rival school to commence classes from the 5th standard onwards on the principal ground that the rival school is located within a distance of 1 km from the Petitioner's school. Therefore, reliance is placed by the Petitioner on the GR dated 19.09.2019, by virtue of which Respondent No.2 has been appointed as the Competent Authority for taking decisions on issuing permissions in respect of the commencement of additional divisions of 5th standard in primary schools as well as 8th standard for higher primary schools. 5 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc 14. Petitioner’s case is that it is an old established school and junior college and therefore if the impugned permission is allowed to be sustained, it will have a drastic effect by causing attrition among the students who are presently studying in the Petitioner’s school. Petitioner fears that students will leave the Petitioner's school and join the rival school, thereby reducing the number of students in the Petitioner's school. The sole primary reason argued by the Petitioner is on account of the distance of the rival school is within 1 km and before grant of permission to the rival school to commence an additional division of the 5th standard for the academic year 2025–2026, Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. 15. Both the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, do not merit any consideration whatsoever. The stream of education cannot be considered to be a monopoly of any particular Educational Institution. Though it is true that the GR dated 19.09.2019 prescribes the distance criteria, the same cannot be held as sacrosanct or a condition precedent for the grant of permission to start or commence additional classes of the 5th standard in a school. 16. The distance criteria is merely one of the conditions mentioned in the said GR which needs to be adhered to, keeping in mind various other parameters. It is not the principal factor for consideration as is argued by the Petitioner before us. 6 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc 17. Reference has been made to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which came into effect after the passing of the earlier GR. Pursuant thereto and in order to enhance the quality of education and empowerment of primary schools run by local bodies, the State Government issued a further GR dated 15.03.2024. 18. The terms and conditions contained in the previous GR dated 19.09.2019 have also been considered. Both the GRs are appended to the Petition. We have gone through the said GRs carefully. What we find is that the geographical distance criteria vehemently argued by the Petitioner can never be considered to be the sole determinative factor for grant of permission to a rival school for starting additional classes, primarily because of large-scale urbanisation in the present times. The GRs prima facie set out various parameters required to be considered. The reasons for issuing the said GRs indicate that pursuant to substantial litigation in that direction, the Government realized that when permissions are granted to rival schools to begin additional classes, existing schools may face attrition in student strength, thereby leading their enrolment and rendering their teachers who are employed by those opponent schools as surplus. Therefore the liability and responsibility of the Government to accommodate surplus teachers on the financial side arises. 7 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc 19. Further even though the student strength may not increase, but due to such attrition the overall strength of teachers increases and most of them are rendered surplus. The said GRs are based upon the RTE Act, whereby it is deemed necessary to start classes from the 5th standard onwards to accommodate students who have already studied up to the 4th standard in the same school and similarly in respect of those students who have studied up to the 7th standard in the same school. Keeping this perspective in mind, the GR of 2019 was passed. One page No.28, Exhibit 'B', the said GR has been appended. The said GR lays down 7 terms and conditions to be fulfilled when the Competent Authority grants permission for starting and commencing additional classes for the 5th standard and the 8th standard. 20. In the instant case, it is prima facie seen that the said conditions stand fulfilled. An appropriate report was called for by the Competent Authority prior to granting permission from the Extension Officer and the PWD. Though a lost of thrust was laid by the Petitioner on the the issue of geographical distance of 1 km, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by Mr. Arjunwadkar that the said distance should be held to be sacrosanct or a condition precedent before grant of permission by the Competent Authority. 21. In the present case, there is a dichotomy expressed by a neutral PWD Office Report which clarifies that the shorter distance 8 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 school is 850 meters whereas the longer distance is 1.2 kms. This finding is objected by the Petitioner. We do not find merit in the objection raised by the Petitioner primarily because education cannot be forced upon students. In today's competitive environment, if sufficient students are available, then there is no reason as to why permission for starting additional classes should not be allowed. 22. The idea and object behind prescribing a geographical distance criteria is to ensure that the student population is distributed in such a manner that the students get an opportunity to access education. The stream of education has become more liberal and inclusive because of the passing of the RTE Act and the Rules made thereunder. 23. In our opinion, the distance criteria contained in the GR dated 19.09.2019 cannot be held to be a condition precedent. The facts of each case should govern the applicability of the geographical distance criterion before the Competent Authority. 24. Insofar as the contention regarding the grant of a personal hearing to Petitioner is concerned, we are in complete disagreement with the submission made by Mr. Arjunwadkar that the Petitioner ought to have been heard. If such an argument were to be accepted, every rival school would begin raising objections and seek a personal 9 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc hearing thereby rendering the cause of education susceptible to avoidable delays and opportunistic litigation. That is not the intention behind the issuance of both the aforesaid GRs by the State Government. Both the GRs in fact take into account the demographic distribution of students who have studied from the 1st to the 7th standard in schools where permission for commencing additional classes is sought. Even otherwise, under Clause 3(R)(i) of the GR dated 19.09.2019, it is provided that in densely populated urban and semi-urban areas, the State Government or the local authority shall establish more than one nearby school, keeping in view the population of children in the age group of 6 to 14 years in the said area, in accordance with the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 25. Further, it is seen that the requirement of a school building can never be judged by the geographical distance and measured accordingly. In our opinion, even assuming that the shorter distance between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5's school is 850 meters., in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said will have to be considered as adequate enough to satisfy the condition of geographical distance of 1 km because the stream of education cannot be compromised merely on the basis of the distance limits prescribed in the GRs. 10 of 11 WP.9609.2025.doc 26. The terms and conditions given in the GRs which are invoked in the present Petition are in the nature of guidelines. It is further seen that the GR dated 15.03.2024 virtually changes and dilutes the contents of the GR dated 19.09.2019 in order to make education more diverse, accessible and inclusive for all cross sections of Society. 27. In that view of the matter, we are of the firm opinion that distance cannot be the sole criteria to decide whether the Competent Authority has committed any error or otherwise. In our opinion, the orders passed by the Competent Authority do not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever and deserve to be upheld. 28. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and are therefore constrained to dismiss the Writ Petition. 29. Petition is dismissed. [ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 11 of 11 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.08.06 13:13:47 +0530