J-921-WP-12226-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12226 OF 2025 Brrilliant English Medium School ] Shirol ] Through Principal ] Shri. Pandurang Sahebrao Kadade ] Age – 51 Years, Occ : Service ] R/o. Sana Gardan Apt. Opp ] Tal – Miraj, Dist. - Kolhapur ] … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] Through its Principal Secretary, ] School Education Department, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. ] ] 2. The Director of Primary Education, ] State of Maharashtra, Central Building, ] Dr. Annie Besant Road, Agarkar Nagar, ] Pune – 411 002. ] ] 3. The Education Oicer (Primary), ] Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur – 416 003. ] … Respondents —————— Mr. Aditya Raktade a/w. Ms. Swaranjali S. Raktade Petitioner. Mr. V. M. Mali, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State. Mr. Kedar Lad for Respondent No.3. —————— ZIP 1 of 8 J-921-WP-12226-2025.doc Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : 05th Decemeber, 2025. ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) 1. The Writ Petition is iled by a School Management which had intake of students under implementation of Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred as the ‘2009 Act’ for the sake of convenience). The grievance of the Petitioner is that, even after admitting adequate number of students under the 2009 Act and having imparted education to them respectively, the Petitioner is still deprived of the reimbursement of fees/expenses against such students U/s 12(2) of the 2009 Act. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has submitted the proposal/claim on 25th February 2025 with the Education Oicer and has even consistently reminded the said authority. That, despite of it, the Education Oicer has not credited the reimbursement. 3. The Petitioner submits that if the Authority merely sits on the claims, the very purpose of the social beneicial scheme endorsed in the 2009 Act would stand frustrated. ZIP 2 of 8 J-921-WP-12226-2025.doc 4. In order to support the prayer made in the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner would relies upon the Judgment and Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (St.) No. 27849 of 2025 in the case of Progressive Convent School & Junior College Vs. the State and ors. decided by the Circuit Bench, Kolhapur on 6th November 2025. 5. In the case of Progressive Convent School (supra), we have observed as follows:- “ Para 10 onwards:- 10. As such its evident that despite the claims/proposals having submitted by the Petitioner institution for the beneit of Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009, those are neither cleared nor the Petitioner has been responded as to the result on those claims/proposals. 11. In view of the above we are of the view that if the respondent authorities merely sit over the claims, the very purpose of the Act of 2009 would indeed stand frustrated. The respondent authorities must bear in mind that the provisions of 2009 Act are not meant to be proitable to the educational institute, but those are realistically meant to encourage the deserving educational institutions to run the school by accommodating inancially weaker section students to impart free and compulsory education. 12. Prime object of the enactment is to bring the kids of such inancially weaker section of society in the low of regular education process by implementing free and compulsory education policy. The predominant object of entitling private unaided schools to run their schools by accommodating poor and inancially weaker section @ 25% of the student strength, and granting them reimbursement of the expenses per such student is ZIP 3 of 8 J-921-WP-12226-2025.doc obviously with a view to achieve the goal of education to all. 13. The object of the Act is seen from the Section 3 of the 2009 Act which is reproduced as follows for the sake of convenience: - “3. Right of child to free and compulsory education. -[(1) Every child of the age of six to fourteen years, including a child referred to in clause (d) or clause (e) of section 2, shall have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her elementary education.] (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing the elementary education. [(3) A child with disability referred to in sub-clause (A) of clause (ee) of section 2 shall, without prejudice to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996), and a child referred to in sub-clauses (B) and (C) of clause (ee) of section 2, have the same rights to pursue free and compulsory elementary education which children with disabilities have under the provisions of Chapter V of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: Provided that a child with “multiple disabilities” referred to in clause (h) and a child with “severe disability” referred to in clause (o) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999) may also have the right to opt for home-based education.]” 14. Section 12 (2) of the 2009 Act deals with the reimbursement of the expenses to the deserving ZIP 4 of 8 J-921-WP-12226-2025.doc educational institutions. For the sake of convenience, Section 12 (2) of the 2009 Act is reproduced as below:- “12. Extent of Schools Responsibility for Free and Compulsory Education (1)… (2) The school speciied in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 providing free and compulsory elementary education as speciied in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred by it to the extent of per-child-expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that such reimbursement shall not exceed per- child-expenditure incurred by a school speciied in sub- clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2: Provided further that where such school is already under obligation to provide free education to a speciied number of children on account of it having received any land, building, equipment or other facilities, either free of cost or at a concessional rate, such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement to the extent of such obligation. (3)…” 15. We are cautious of the fact that merely admitting certain percent students ipso facto doesn’t entitle the Schools to receive the reimbursement from the respondent authorities. The Authorities are certainly supposed to examine legitimacy of each reimbursement proposal in the light of the government policy and the statutory requirements as are described in the 2009 Act. 16. However the approach of the concerned respondent authorities of merely sitting tight over such proposals is certainly disapproved by us. If the R.No.6 or any respondent authorities noticed any deiciency in the proposals, it was for such authority(ies) to call upon the Petitioner to inquire into, or to clear of the deiciency, as ZIP 5 of 8 J-921-WP-12226-2025.doc the case may be. But this exercise doesn’t seem to have been done by present R.No.6; and as also by such authorities in a number of cases as could be seen from the cited orders, which is a worrying factor. 17. We feel that the Act of 2009 is obviously a piece of ‘Social Beneicial Legislation’. Unless the implementing authorities give true efect to the provisions therein by operating those, such a benevolent legislation and the object of the Parliament would not reach to its logical end. This tempts us to issue certain directions to the R.Nos. 2 to 4 to see positive and efective implementation of the Act of 2009.” 6. We ind the case in hand, is not quite diferent from the Progressive Convent School case (supra). In the cited case we have even directed the State Authorities to formulate some mechanism to see efective implementation of Section 12 (2) of the 2009 Act. 7. Learned counsels for the responding parties would fairly agree that the Education Oicer must deal with the proposal(s) iled by the Petitioner expeditiously, and should there be no hindrance nor any delay in processing the proposal(s) on its own merit. ZIP 6 of 8 J-921-WP-12226-2025.doc 8. Therefore, without going into the merits of Petitioner’s case we dispose this petition in the same tune of the Progressive Convent School case (supra.). Let the Education Oicer scrutinize the claim proposal iled by the Petitioner and reimburse the fees/expenses accordingly within a timeframe. 9. Hence following order:- (i) The Petitioner shall approach the Education Oicer together with copy of this order within a period of Two weeks from the date of this order. If needed, the Petitioner can ile additional documents in support of the pending claim, and can even ile a comprehensive claim attached with such documents those are necessary in support of the claim. (ii) Within a period of Six weeks from receipt of this Order’s copy, the Education Oicer shall decide Petitioner’s claim proposal (s) on its own merit, to reimburse the grant / fees and expenses under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009 for the period as mentioned in the claim proposal(s). (iii) If the Education Oicer has any reasonable query, such query would be brought to the notice of the Petitioner immediately which, the Petitioner would answer/satisfy accordingly. (iv) We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the entitlement of Petitioner-school to receive the reimbursement nor we have made any ZIP 7 of 8 J-921-WP-12226-2025.doc observations as to the amount of reimbursement, if any, receivable by the Petitioner. (v) Keeping all contentions open, Writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. [ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] ZIP 8 of 8