IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13568 OF 2025 Sant Gadgebaba Dnyan Prabhodhini Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha through its President VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others AND WRIT PETITION NO. 13583 OF 2025 Sant Gadgebaba Dnyan Prabhodhini Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha through its President VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others Mr. S. N. Janakwade, Advocate for petitioners in both petitions Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for respondent-State CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 14th November, 2025 ORDER (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J) :- 1. These two petitions, numbered as 13568 of 2025 and 13583 of 2025, are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners seek to challenge and set aside the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by respondent No. 1, by which the proposal submitted by the petitioners for allotment of a boys’ hostel at Kinwat, Dist. Nanded, came to be rejected. The hostel in question is one among several government- aided hostels that, according to the petitioners, have been shut down or de-recognized by the State under its policy. 2. The petitioners are registered organizations under the WP-13568 & 13583.odt 1 of 7 2025:BHC-AUG:32569-DB Bombay Public Trusts Act and the Societies Registration Act. Their objective is to work for the welfare of students in the predominantly tribal areas of Kinwat Taluka. It is their case that the region is severely deficient in residential facilities for students, particularly those belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other backward classes. Most students hail from remote villages and cannot afford accommodation in Kinwat, resulting in the discontinuation of their education. To address this, the petitioners contend that they are willing and prepared to run a boys’ hostel for such students. 3. The petitioners state that they obtained information under the Right to Information Act from respondent no. 2, which revealed that the Government had canceled the approval of 36 government-aided hostels across the State and had resolved to allot such hostels to other eligible organizations. 4. The petitioners place reliance on the Government Resolution dated 28.06.2018, issued by the State of Maharashtra, which lays down the procedure for transfer and migration of government-aided hostels for Scheduled Caste students that have been closed, shut down suo motu, or de-recognized. The stated objective of the resolution is to ensure continuity of hostel benefits to students, so that they do not suffer due to closure of such facilities. The Resolution further permits transfer of the WP-13568 & 13583.odt 2 of 7 affected hostels to voluntary organizations willing to operate them. 5. According to the petitioners, they took a building on rent on 10.01.2023 for the specific purpose of running a hostel for the benefit of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students in the tribal region. It is asserted that there is no other government hostel available in Kinwat. A proposal, along with necessary documents, was first submitted to respondent no. 1 on 29.08.2022 for allotment of boys’ and girls’ hostels closed by the Government in Kinwat, Mahur, and Himayatnagar talukas. 6. The petitioners complain that their proposal remained unattended from August 2022 onwards. Respondent no. 1 issued a communication to respondent no. 2 on 29.05.2023 directing appropriate action as per policy. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 issued a letter on 27.12.2023 asking the petitioners to submit a complete proposal in triplicate in accordance with the procedure for transfer and migration of hostels. In response, the petitioners submitted a fresh proposal on 30.01.2024. 7. Respondent no. 4 then carried out a physical inspection of the petitioners’ premises, prepared an Infrastructure Assessment Report, and recorded that the petitioners had taken a building on rent and possessed necessary basic facilities, including access to a competitive WP-13568 & 13583.odt 3 of 7 examination centre, library, and health center. Respondent No. 4 awarded 190 out of 200 marks to the petitioners and recommended their proposal on 22.01.2024. Respondent No. 3 thereafter forwarded the report and recommendation to respondent no. 2 on 08.02.2024, requesting appropriate action under the Government Resolution of 28.06.2018. 8. The petitioners state that, as the academic year 2024-2025 was approaching, they sent a reminder on 11.06.2024 requesting that two hostels — Matoshri Bayanabai Ramtirthkar Girls’ Hostel and Shri Vittalrao Ramtirthkar Boys’ Hostel—be allotted in the interest of students. As no decision was taken, they filed Writ Petition No. 10741 of 2024, in which this Court directed respondent no. 1 on 01.10.2024 to decide the proposal. The petitioners claim to have complied with the directions on 10.12.2024 and later issued a further reminder on 03.04. 2025. As no decision was forthcoming, they filed Contempt Petition No. 378 of 2025. It is only after notice in the contempt proceedings that respondent No. 1 finally passed the impugned rejection order dated 12.08.2025. 9. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the rejection is contrary to record government policy, and the procedure under the Government Resolution of 28.06.2018. The sole ground for rejection is WP-13568 & 13583.odt 4 of 7 that the application was not submitted pursuant to an advertisement issued later is according to the petitioners perverse. They contend that their application dated 30.01.2024 was submitted strictly pursuant to the directions issued by respondent No. 4 on 27.12.2023, much prior to the advertisement issued subsequently. They further rely upon the inspection report awarding them 190 marks out of 200, demonstrating their eligibility and preparedness to run the hostel. 10. The learned AGP, appearing for the State, contends that the Government identified 36 hostels which were de-recognized or closed and accordingly issued a public advertisement inviting applications in the prescribed format from all interested organizations. The petitioners did not submit an application in response to the advertisement dated 01.09.2024, which was the only recognized mode of applying. Instead, they directly approached the government authorities contrary to the prescribed procedure. It is submitted that the State must follow a transparent and uniform process, and the petitioners cannot claim special treatment by bypassing the notified procedure. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The documents reveal that the petitioners had indeed submitted representations dated 29.08.2022 and 30.01.2024 expressing desire to run a boys’ hostel in Kinwat. However, it is clear WP-13568 & 13583.odt 5 of 7 that none of the 36 hostels listed as shut down or de-recognized by the Government were situated in Kinwat or adjoining areas. Thus, the petitioners’ assertion that they sought allotment of one of those 36 hostels is factually incorrect. Significantly, the list of 36 hostels was published only after the petitioners’ proposal dated 30.01.2024. Therefore, the said proposal could not possibly have pertained to the hostels listed subsequently. 12. The impugned order refers to the Government Resolution dated 28.06.2018 and the communication of the Commissioner, Social Welfare, dated 01.03.2024. The Resolution requires that the list of available hostels be published on the department’s website and that public advertisements be issued in newspapers of each regional division inviting applications from NGOs and social welfare institutions. Thereafter, the applications are required to be scrutinized by the Commissioner, who must forward his recommendations to the Government. 13. The Commissioner, by communication dated 16.08.2024, reiterated this procedure. Pursuant thereto, the State issued advertisements on 01.09.2024 inviting applications, with 30.09.2024 as the last date. A number of applications were received and are presently under scrutiny. The petitioners, however, did not submit any application WP-13568 & 13583.odt 6 of 7 pursuant to the advertisement. Instead, they continued to rely on their earlier proposals, which were never submitted in the prescribed manner. 14. In these circumstances, respondent No. 1 was justified in holding that the petitioners’ proposal could not be considered as it was not submitted in accordance with the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Government Resolution and the public advertisement. When the Government has adopted a transparent and uniform process to ensure equal opportunity to all eligible organizations, it is not open to any applicant to claim an exception in disregard of the prescribed procedure. 15. We find no arbitrariness, procedural irregularity, or illegality in the decision dated 12.08.2025. The reasoning is consistent with the statutory framework and policy adopted by the State, and no ground is made out for interference under Article 226. 16. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. (Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) B. S. Joshi WP-13568 & 13583.odt 7 of 7