Bombay High Court Quashes Withdrawal of School Recognition Under Tribal Student Scheme for Violation of Natural Justice. Non-Speaking Order Based on Unidentified Complaint Without Hearing Set Aside Under Article 226.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 46
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Dr. K. D. Shendge Charitable Trust and its school, challenged an order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the State of Maharashtra withdrawing recognition of the school under the Tribal Development Residential-cum-Hostel Scheme and directing transfer of 207 tribal students to other schools. The school had been recognized since 2017 and had consistently received high gradation marks. The impugned order merely mentioned a complaint without identifying the complainant or disclosing any particulars or supporting material, and no reasons were recorded. The petitioners contended that no notice or hearing was afforded before passing the adverse order. The court held that the order was non-speaking, arbitrary, and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to continue the recognition and not transfer the students.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - Non-Speaking Order - Withdrawal of recognition under Tribal Student Scheme without affording opportunity of hearing or disclosing reasons violates principles of natural justice - Held that the order is arbitrary and liable to be set aside (Paras 4-6).

B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Quashing of Administrative Order - Order passed without application of mind and without disclosing complainant or material is unsustainable - Held that such order cannot be sustained (Paras 4-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned order withdrawing recognition of a school under the Tribal Student Scheme without prior notice, hearing, or reasons is sustainable in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 and directed the respondents to continue the recognition of the petitioner No. 2 school under the Tribal Student Scheme and not to transfer the tribal students to other schools.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • right to hearing
  • reasoned order
  • non-speaking order
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
  • Maharashtra Public Trust Act
  • 1950
  • Tribal Development Residential-cum-Hostel Scheme
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025:BHC-AUG:29420-DB

WRIT PETITION NO. 10898 OF 2025

2025-10-09

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Hiten S. Venegavkar

2025:BHC-AUG:29420-DB

Mr. Bora Satyajit S. for Petitioners, Mr. A. B. Girase, GP for Respondents/State

Dr. K. D. Shendge Charitable Trust through its President and Another

The State Of Maharashtra through its Secretary and Others

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging withdrawal of recognition of a school under the Tribal Development Residential-cum-Hostel Scheme.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 and protection against transfer of students.

Filing Reason

The impugned order was passed without notice, hearing, or reasons, and was based on an unidentified complaint.

Issues

Whether the impugned order withdrawing recognition without prior notice, hearing, or reasons is sustainable in law.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that no notice, documents, or hearing were afforded before the order. Petitioners argued that the order is non-speaking and arbitrary, with no application of mind. Petitioners argued that their gradation for 2024-25 was high (93% as per their documents, 72.50% as per department).

Ratio Decidendi

An administrative order that withdraws recognition without affording an opportunity of hearing, without disclosing the complainant or material, and without recording reasons, is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and is liable to be quashed under Article 226.

Judgment Excerpts

The order cryptically states that some complaint was received against the petitioner No. 2 school but fails to identify the complainant or discloses the nature, particulars or supporting material in the impugned order. It does not even record any reasons for the necessity of passing or issuing such adverse directions against the petitioners.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court challenging the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by respondent No. 1. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 09.10.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950:
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Withdrawal of School Recognition Under Tribal Student Scheme for Violation of Natural Justice. Non-Speaking Order Based on Unidentified Complaint Without Hearing Set Aside Under Article 226.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Industrial Court's Finding of Employer-Employee Relationship in Unfair Labour Practice Case. The court upheld the Industrial Court's decision that fifteen employees were direct employees of the petitio...