Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by Shri Swami Samarth Bahuddeshi Sanstha, Vairag, a society running a special residential school for children with disabilities named Sau. Rajmata Kharatmol Matimand Nivasi Shala at Solapur. The school was established in 2001 and had been operating on a non-grant basis for over twenty years. The petitioner challenged the rejection order dated 4 March 2025 passed by the Under Secretary, Disabilities Welfare Department, Government of Maharashtra, and sought directions to sanction grant-in-aid to the school under the Government Resolution dated 8 April 2015. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the Government Resolution dated 16 July 2024, which mandated fresh proposals on a self-financing basis, was not applicable to its case, and claimed arrears of grant-in-aid from 8 April 2015. Additionally, the petitioner prayed for initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance of a previous court order. The factual background reveals that the school was initially registered on a permanent unaided basis in 2006, and later converted to unaided status in 2009. The school was assessed as Grade A in annual inspections and its registration was renewed until 2022. The petitioner submitted multiple proposals seeking grant-in-aid, claiming eligibility under the Government Resolution dated 19 July 2003, which entitled schools to aid after two years of registration. Despite recommendations from the District Social Welfare Officer and the Commissioner for Disabilities Welfare—both confirming the school’s Grade A status and recommending grant-in-aid—the State Government failed to include the petitioner in the list of 123 schools that received 100% grant under the 2015 Government Resolution. The petitioner contended that its school was similarly placed and ranked 8th in the merit list, yet was arbitrarily excluded. After a fresh proposal in 2022, the respondents recommended aid again, but the State Government rejected it on the ground that a fresh proposal under the 2024 Government Resolution was required. The legal issues centered on whether the petitioner was entitled to grant-in-aid under the 2015 policy, whether the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory, whether the 2024 policy applied retrospectively, and whether contempt proceedings were warranted. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the school had consistently maintained Grade A status, had been recommended by all inspecting authorities, and that the denial of aid violated the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which obligate the State to provide free education to children with disabilities. The State opposed the petition, though its specific arguments were not detailed in the extracted text. The Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the petitioner-school had been running for over twenty years without aid, had secured Grade A status, and had received favourable recommendations from the District Social Welfare Officer and the Commissioner for Disabilities Welfare. The Court observed that the petitioner’s school ranked 8th in the merit list and that there appeared to be no valid reason for denying grant-in-aid when 123 similarly placed schools had been granted the same. The bench seemed inclined to view the rejection as arbitrary and questioned the insistence on a fresh proposal under the 2024 Government Resolution given the long pendency. However, the provided text of the judgment ends abruptly before the final order, and the conclusive decision is not recorded. The reasoning indicates that the Court was likely to allow the petition, but the final directions remain unknown from the available excerpt.
Headnote
A) Grant-in-Aid - Eligibility - Government Resolution 8 April 2015 - Petitioner’s special residential school for children with disabilities, running for over 20 years without aid, assessed as Grade A, and recommended by the District Social Welfare Officer and the Commissioner for Disabilities Welfare, was not included among 123 similarly placed schools that received 100% grant - Court observed that once the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria, there can be no reason to deny grant-in-aid - Held that the petitioner appears eligible and the denial is questionable (Paras 2-4, 8). B) Constitutional Law - Discrimination - Equal Treatment - Petitioner-school, despite ranking 8th in the merit list prepared by the District Social Welfare Officer, was arbitrarily excluded from the list of schools granted aid under the 2015 Government Resolution while other Grade A schools were included - Court noted the clear recommendation and questioned the arbitrary exclusion, implying possible violation of equality norms (Paras 3, 6, 8). C) Rights of Persons with Disabilities - State Obligation - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The State is obligated to ensure free education to children with disabilities and promote special schools in government and private sectors - Petitioner invoked these provisions to strengthen the claim for grant-in-aid - Held that the State’s obligation reinforces the need to consider the petitioner’s case favourably (Paras 5, 6). D) Government Resolution 16 July 2024 - Applicability - Retrospective Application - Petitioner sought a declaration that the new policy requiring fresh proposals on self-financing basis does not apply to its pre-existing case - The rejection of the petitioner’s proposal on the ground that a fresh proposal must be submitted under the 2024 GR was challenged as arbitrary - Court hinted that mechanical insistence on a fresh proposal may be unjustified given the long pendency and repeated recommendations (Paras 1, 4, 6). E) Contempt of Court - Non-Compliance - Willful Disobedience - Petitioner sought suo motu contempt proceedings against respondents for alleged non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 30 November 2021 in Writ Petition No. 3840 of 2019 - Court noted the prayer but substantive determination was not recorded in the provided text (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant-in-aid for its special school under the Government Resolution dated 8 April 2015, whether the rejection order dated 4 March 2025 is arbitrary, whether the Government Resolution dated 16 July 2024 applies to the petitioner's case, and whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents.
Law Points
- duty of state to provide free education to children with disabilities
- eligibility for grant-in-aid based on assessment and recommendation
- prohibition of arbitrary discrimination in granting aid
- requirement of fresh proposal under new government resolution may not apply to pending cases
