Bombay High Court Quashes Government Resolution Transferring Ashram School to Third Party Without Considering Petitioner's Proposal. Transfer of Management of Tribal Ashram School Must Follow Due Process and Consider All Eligible Applicants Under the Maharashtra Tribal Development Department Guidelines.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 110
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Gramoddhar Vidya Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a Government Resolution dated 29 August 2009 that transferred an ashram school from Pujya Jagnnath Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal to respondent no.3, Shri Kanhaiyalal Maharaj Trust, to run the school at mouza Jebapur, District Dhule, from the academic session 2009-2010. The petitioner also sought a direction to the State to grant approval to its proposal for transfer of the ashram school at mouza Kayar, Tal. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal to the petitioner society. The background facts reveal that in March 1999, the State granted permission to Pujya Jagnnath Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal to run an ashram school at Kayar. Due to mismanagement, the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik cancelled the permission, and the appeal against that order was rejected on 19 May 2009. The petitioner claimed that the original society had proposed to transfer management to the petitioner, and a joint proposal was submitted. However, the State, without considering the petitioner's proposal, transferred the school to respondent no.3. The legal issues centered on whether the State was bound to consider the petitioner's proposal before transferring the school and whether the impugned resolution violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that its proposal was pending and should have been considered. The respondents contended that the transfer was made after following due process. The court analyzed the facts and found that the State had not considered the petitioner's proposal before issuing the impugned resolution. The court held that the State must consider all eligible proposals before transferring the management of an ashram school and that the impugned resolution was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The court quashed the Government Resolution dated 29 August 2009 and directed the State to consider the petitioner's proposal for transfer of management afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The decision was in favor of the petitioner.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Transfer of Management - Government Resolution dated 29.08.2009 - The State transferred the ashram school to respondent no.3 without considering the petitioner's proposal for transfer of management. The court held that the State must consider all eligible proposals before transferring the management of an ashram school and that the impugned resolution was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 2-6)

B) Tribal Development - Ashram Schools - Transfer of Management - The petitioner society had submitted a proposal for transfer of management of the ashram school at Kayar, but the State transferred the school to respondent no.3 without considering the petitioner's proposal. The court held that the State must follow a fair procedure and consider all eligible applicants. (Paras 4-6)

C) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Quashing of Government Resolution - The court quashed the Government Resolution dated 29.08.2009 and directed the State to consider the petitioner's proposal for transfer of management afresh in accordance with law. (Paras 6-7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Government Resolution transferring the ashram school to the respondent no.3 without considering the petitioner's proposal for transfer of management is valid and sustainable in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed the Government Resolution dated 29 August 2009 and directed the State to consider the petitioner's proposal for transfer of management afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

Law Points

  • Administrative Law
  • Natural Justice
  • Transfer of Management
  • Ashram Schools
  • Tribal Development
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 103

WRIT PETITION NO. 4305 OF 2009

2011-07-25

Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, Prasanna B. Varale

Mr. S. S. Joshi for petitioner, Mr. A. M. Deshpande for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. A. M. Gordey with Mr. S. D. Chopde for respondent no.3

Gramoddhar Vidya Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha

State of Maharashtra, The Commissioner, Tribal Development Commissionerate, Nashik, and Shri Kanhaiyalal Maharaj Trust

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking quashing of Government Resolution transferring ashram school and direction to consider petitioner's proposal for transfer of management.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Government Resolution dated 29.08.2009 transferring the school to respondent no.3 and a direction to the State to grant approval to the petitioner's proposal for transfer of the ashram school.

Filing Reason

The State transferred the ashram school to respondent no.3 without considering the petitioner's proposal for transfer of management.

Previous Decisions

The Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik cancelled the permission granted to Pujya Jagnnath Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal to run the ashram school at Kayar due to mismanagement. The appeal against that order was rejected on 19.05.2009.

Issues

Whether the Government Resolution dated 29.08.2009 transferring the ashram school to respondent no.3 without considering the petitioner's proposal is valid. Whether the State is bound to consider the petitioner's proposal for transfer of management before transferring the school.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that its proposal for transfer of management was pending and should have been considered before transferring the school to respondent no.3. Respondents contended that the transfer was made after following due process and that the petitioner's proposal was not eligible.

Ratio Decidendi

The State must consider all eligible proposals before transferring the management of an ashram school. The impugned resolution was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner's proposal was not considered.

Judgment Excerpts

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 29th August, 2009 transferring the school... The court quashed the Government Resolution dated 29 August 2009 and directed the State to consider the petitioner's proposal for transfer of management afresh.

Procedural History

The State granted permission to Pujya Jagnnath Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal to run an ashram school at Kayar in March 1999. Due to mismanagement, the Commissioner cancelled the permission. The appeal against cancellation was rejected on 19.05.2009. The petitioner submitted a proposal for transfer of management. The State issued a Government Resolution on 29.08.2009 transferring the school to respondent no.3. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the resolution.

Acts & Sections

  • Societies Registration Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Due to Erroneous Deduction of Personal Expenses and Incorrect Multiplier Application. Compensation Enhanced from Rs.3,36,850 to Rs.5,23,600 for Death of 25-Year-Old Bachelor in Head-On Collisio...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Compromise Decree Passed by Lok Adalat in Absence of Party — Restoration of Suit Ordered for Fresh Adjudication on Merits. Compromise Decree Set Aside as Petitioner Was Not a Party to the Suit and Was Not Represented...