K.L. Wadane JUDGMENT
T.V. Nalawade, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
2. The petition is filed under Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 226 of Constitution of India for relief of quashing and setting aside the permission granted by respondent No. 1, the State to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to start the Junior College, 11th Standard Science and also for preventing the Government from giving such permission. It is contended that the permission granted on 22.1.2013 is illegal. Both the sides are heard.
3. The petitioner is registered trust and it is running primary and secondary school and also junior and senior college at Thalner in Shirpur Tahsil. The State Government granted permission to petitioner to start science faculty in junior college of petitioner in the year 2006 and 100% grant was also made available for that division. It is contended that accordingly, the petitioner started 11th standard science division in the year 2006 and the course was running smoothly as there were admissions of more than 90 students.
4. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No. 5 submitted proposal for granting permission to start science faculty as junior college in the year 2011-12. It is contended that as there was such facility in the village and opening of another junior college for the same faculty would have created unhealthy competition, the petitioner objected for giving permission to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It is contended that the authorities like Education Officer, Deputy Director and Director considered all the relevant factors and prepared reports against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It is contended that on the basis of those reports, the State Government took a decision of rejection of the proposal of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for the academic year 2011-12 and in the list, which was published by the State Government in respect of permission on 27.7.2012, there was no name of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for aforesaid course. It is contended that up to the Government level, the petitioner had filed the objection.
5. It is the case of petitioner that though the permission was refused, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had admitted some students by starting 11th standard science division. It is contended that directions were given by the State Government and authority like Director to see that the students already admitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in 11th standard science faculty are transferred to other schools. It is contended that when the action was in process, one M.L.A. intervened in the matter and gave recommendation in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It is contended that due to influence of M.L.A. and as the President of respondent No. 5 was Zilla Parishad member and he was belonging to the then ruling party, Congress I party, the report was submitted by Director in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and then the Government issued letter of permission in favour of respondents in January 2013. It is contended that in view of the procedure laid down, the respondents could not have started science division of 11th standard without getting permission and as the previous proposal was rejected in view of the procedure laid down, it was not possible to consider one more proposal for the same academic year. It is contended that the action is in contravention of provisions of aforesaid Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and so, the illegal decision of the State needs to ........