J-79-WP-19086-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19086 OF 2024 1) Shree Laxmi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, 1075, A-1, 2, Laxmitek Parisar, Sane Guruji Vasahat, Kolhapur, Thru’ its Chairman ] ] ] ] ] 2) Shri Vasantrao Jaywantrao Deshmukh High School, Laxmitex Parisar, Radhanagari Road, Kolhapur, Thru’ its Head Mistress. ] ] ] ] ...Petitioners. Versus 1) State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. ] ] ] ] 2) Maharashtra Prathamik Shikshan Parishad, Through its Director, Jawahar Bal Bhawan, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg, Charni Road, Mumbai 400 004. ] ] ] ] ] 3) The Director of Primary Education, State of Maharashtra, Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Agarkar Nagar, Pune 411002. ] ] ] ] 4) The Commissioner of Education, Central Building, First Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Agarkar Nagar, Pune 411 001. ] ] ] 5) Deputy Director of Education, 17, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Camp Pune 411001. ] ] ] ] Shubham Talle 1 of 7 J-79-WP-19086-2024.doc 6) The Education Oicer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Primary Division, Kolhapur. ] ] ] ...Respondents. —————— Adv. Bhargavi Patil a/w Adv. M. S. Topkar, Adv. B. D. Manolkar, Adv. Neev Patil i/by Pavitra Manesh for the Petitioner. Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : December 22, 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 to Education Act 2009 (hereinafter referred as the ‘2009 Act’ for the sake of convenience). The grievance of the Petitioners are that even after admitting adequate number of students under the 2009 Act and having imparted education to those respectively, the Petitioners are still deprived of the reimbursement of fees/expenses against such students under Section 12(2) of the 2009 Act. 2. The Petitioners submit that the Petitioners have submitted the proposal/claim on 8th February, 2024 and 16th May, 2024 with the Education Oicer and have even consistently reminded the said authority. That, despite of it the Education Oicer has not credited the reimbursement. Shubham Talle 2 of 7 J-79-WP-19086-2024.doc 3. The Petitioners submit 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. 4. In order to support the prayer made in the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners rely upon the Judgment and Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (St.) No. 27849 of 2025 (Progressive Convent School Kolki 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:- “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 Shubham Talle 3 of 7 J-79-WP-19086-2024.doc per such student is 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 educational institutions. For the sake of convenience, Section 12 (2) of the 2009 Act is reproduced as below:- Shubham Talle 4 of 7 J-79-WP-19086-2024.doc 12(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. 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 Govt. 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 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, Shubham Talle 5 of 7 J-79-WP-19086-2024.doc 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 any 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 Counsel for the responding parties would fairly agree that the Education Oicer must deal with the proposal(s) iled by the Petitioners expeditiously, and should there be no hindrance nor any delay in processing the proposal(s) on its own merit. 8. Therefore, without going into the merits of Petitioners’ 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 Petitioners and reimburse the fees/expenses accordingly within a timeframe. 9. In view of this, we pass following order :- ::ORDER:: A) The Petitioners 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 Petitioners can ile additional documents in support of Shubham Talle 6 of 7 J-79-WP-19086-2024.doc the pending claim, and can even ile a comprehensive claim attached with such documents those are necessary in support of the claim. B) Within a period of Six weeks from receipt of this Order’s copy, the Education Oicer shall decide Petitioners’ claim proposal (s) on its own merit, to reimburse the grant / fees and expenses under Section 12(2) of the 2009 Act for the period as mentioned in the claim proposal(s). C) If the Education Oicer has any reasonable query, such query would be brought to the notice of the Petitioners immediately which, the Petitioners would answer/satisfy accordingly. D) We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the entitlement of Petitioner-school to receive the reimbursement nor have we made any observations as to the amount of reimbursement, if any, receivable by the Petitioner. E) Writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. [ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] Shubham Talle 7 of 7 TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.12.23 14:30:42 +0530