Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6105 (BOM)

BHAWABHUTI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, THR. SECRETARY AND ANR. v. STATE OF MAHA., THR. SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT. MUMBAI AND ORS.

WP/6159/2026 · 2026-09-03

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 WP6159-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6159/2026 (BHAWABHUTI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, GONDIA & ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate with Ms Mansi Saraykar, counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Hulke, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE , JJ. D ATE : SEPTEMBER 03 , 2026 P. C. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the communication dated 02.07.2026 issued by the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division whereby the petitioners’ proposal seeking permission to commence Science and Commerce Streams (Class-XI) on a self-finance basis came to be rejected and the consequential communication dated 15.07.2026 is issued by the respondent no.3-Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad Gondia. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who submitted that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. The petitioner no.1 has submitted the proposal to the respondent no.3-Education Officer (Secondary) seeking permission to start the Science and Commerce Branch in English and Marathi medium under the self-finance scheme. Despite the submission of the proposal on 29.07.2014, the respondents have neglected to take any decision thereon till date. He further submitted that the inaction on the part of the Government was continued and therefore the students in the locality were being deprived of the opportunity to pursue Science and Commerce education at the Institution of the petitioners. 2026:BHC-NAG:11655-DB 2 WP6159-26.odt He further submitted that the respondent no.2 on 02.01.2024 found some deficiencies in the proposal and directed the petitioners to remove such deficiencies and re-submit the proposal. The petitioners had again submitted the proposal on 27.07.2024 to the respondent no.2 after duly complying with the deficiencies pointed out by the Authorities. On 26.08.2025, the petitioners issued a communication to the respondent no.2-Deputy Education Officer (Secondary) and visited the premises of the petitioner no.2 and carried out physical inspection of the College and its infrastructure. During inspection, the detail information was collected as well as infrastructure was also inspected. Upon completion of the physical inspection, the respondent no.3- Education Officer (Secondary) after being satisfied with the compliance made by the petitioners, forwarded the proposal to the respondent no2-Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division for further approval. Despite the proposal having been duly forwarded by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.2 alongwith the requisite recommendations, the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Education failed to take any decision thereon and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that if the petitioners submit fresh proposal online, the same would be considered and therefore the petitioners be directed to send the proposal online. 4. After hearing both the sides and on considering the entire record, it appears that the proposal of the petitioners is pending since 29.07.2014. On 05.09.2023 and thereafter also from time to time, the communications were issued by the petitioners. However, even after complying with the deficiencies, the proposal of the petitioners is not yet decided. 3 WP6159-26.odt 5. Therefore, we direct the respondent no.3-Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia to consider the proposal which is already forwarded by the petitioners expeditiously and within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of this order. The respondents are directed to communicate the final result to the petitioners within a period of two weeks after such decision. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) APTE Signed by: Apte Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 03/09/2026 19:21:57