Maruti Dada Patil Sarvangin V. Sanstha vs Hanuman Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors

MARUTI DADA PATIL SARVANGIN .......APPELLANT(S) VIKAS SANSTHA

Versus

HANUMAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK .....RESPONDENT(S) MANDAL & ORS.

ORDER

The appellant sought permission to start a new secondary school for girls in

Nagaj. On 29.5.1999, permission was granted to the appellant to run a co-education

school. The first respondent, who was already running a secondary school at Nagaj,

challenged the grant of such permission. The Bombay High Court, by its judgment

dated 19.7.2000, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 29.5.1999 with a

direction to consider the appellant's application by giving a hearing to the appellant as

well as the first respondent and then pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the third

respondent heard the parties and by order dated 20.4.2001, cancelled the permission

granted to the appellant. However, later, the State Government by order dated

20.7.2001 withdrew the cancellation.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent again approached the Bombay High

Court in W.P. No.854/2002. During the pendency of the said petition, the district

level

.......2.

-2-

Committee reconsidered the application and passed a resolution dated 10.7.2002

recommending the grant of permission. However, on 9.8.2002, the High Court allowed

the second writ petition filed by the first respondent and set aside the order dated

20.7.2001 passed by the Government whereby the cancellation dated 20.4.2001 was

withdrawn. The order of the High Court is challenged by the appellant in this appeal by

special leave. On 20.1.2003, while granting leave, this Court stayed the order of the

High Court and permitted the appellant to run the school in accordance with the

regulations.

3. The resultant position is that the appellant, who was granted permission to

run the school on 21.5.1999, has been continuously running the secondary school for

about eight years, with short periods of cancellation. When the matter was heard today,

learned counsel appearing for the State Government submitted that between the period

when the appellant originally sought permission and now, the demand for schools in the

area has grown and in fact the area requires more schools and the State has no objection

for the continuation of the appellant's school.

4. The objection to the continuation of the appellant's school is only by the

first respondent which is a rival school. The objection is on the ground that there is no

need

...........3.

-3-

for any new school and that a new school will lead to unhealthy competition and may

also result in existing school being closed. It is also contended that the appellant had

adopted illegal and irregular means for getting the permission to start the school.

5. The contention of the first respondent that there is no need for school has lost

relevance in view of the specific stand of the State Government that in fact these two

schools are not sufficient and that further schools are needed in the area. The

apprehension that a new school may lead to unhealthy competition and closure of the

existing school is baseless, as competition improves efficiency and excellence and the

existence of appellant's school for nearly eight years, has not affected the first

respondent's school. No prejudice is caused to the first respondent by the appellant

continuing its school. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the school has

been running for more than five years. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has

also constructed buildings and provided infrastructure required for the school and it has

been running for quite some time. In these peculiar circumstances, it is not necessary to

examine the several technical objections of the first respondent.

......4.

-4-

6. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and

permit the appellant to continue the school in accordance with the regulations, in

pursuance of permission already granted.

...........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; ...........................J. July 03, 2008. ( P. SATHASIVAM )