Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. K. D. Shendge Charitable Trust (a public charitable trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950) and its English Medium 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. The scheme, introduced by Government Resolution dated 28.08.2009 and modified on 27.06.2016 and 18.05.2018, aimed to educate tribal students in reputed English medium schools. The school had been recognized since 2017 and had 207 Scheduled Tribe students out of over 1,800 students. The impugned order cryptically stated that a complaint was received against the school but did not identify the complainant, disclose the nature of the complaint, or provide any supporting material. It also directed the transfer of tribal students to other schools. The petitioners argued that the order was passed without any notice, hearing, or reasons, violating principles of natural justice. They also highlighted that their gradation for 2024-25 was 93% (or 72.50% as per the department), indicating satisfactory performance. The court found that the order was non-speaking, arbitrary, and passed without application of mind. It held that the withdrawal of recognition without affording an opportunity of hearing violated natural justice. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to pass a fresh reasoned order after giving the petitioners a hearing, while protecting the interests of the tribal students.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - Withdrawal of recognition under Tribal Student Scheme without prior notice or opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice - The impugned order was passed based on an unidentified complaint without disclosing any particulars or providing any opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves - Held that such an order is arbitrary and cannot be sustained (Paras 4-6). B) Administrative Law - Reasoned Order - Non-Speaking Order - An order withdrawing recognition must contain reasons and disclose the material on which it is based - The impugned order cryptically mentioned a complaint but failed to identify the complainant or disclose the nature of allegations or supporting material - Held that a non-speaking order without application of mind is liable to be quashed (Paras 4-6). C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review - The High Court can interfere with an administrative order that is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of natural justice - The petitioners had a legitimate expectation of continued recognition based on past approvals and high gradation - Held that the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing the petitioners (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order withdrawing recognition of a school under the Tribal Student Scheme, passed without notice, hearing, or reasons, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 29.08.2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh reasoned order after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. The tribal students shall not be transferred until a fresh order is passed.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to hearing
- reasoned order
- non-speaking order
- Article 226
- Maharashtra Public Trust Act
- 1950
- Tribal Development Residential-cum-Hostel Scheme
