Urmila S. Joshi-Phalke JUDGMENT
A.S. Chandurkar, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The management of the educational institution run by the petitioner-Society was taken over for a period of two years pursuant to an order passed under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 (for short, the Act of 1976) by the Director of Education on 12.05.2017. The order passed by the Director of Education was challenged in an appeal preferred by the Society under Section 3(4) of the Act of 1976 and the said appeal has been dismissed on 12.02.2021. While dismissing that appeal, it has been directed that the appointment of the Administrator for managing the affairs of the educational institution would continue. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Society has challenged the said order.
3. Shri M.M. Sudame, learned counsel for the Society submitted that the Director while invoking the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act of 1976 ordered that the management of the educational institution was being taken over for a period of two years during which period the Administrator was to look after the management of the educational institution. Pursuant to the said order the Board of Administrators was appointed which took over the charge of the management of the institution on 02.11.2017. The Society had challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal under Section 3(4) of the Act of 1976. The appellate Authority while confirming that order directed continuation of the appointment of the Administrator. This order was passed on 12.02.2021 which was much beyond the period of two years for which the management had been taken over initially. On expiry of the period of two years from 02.11.2017 when the management was taken over, the order passed by the Director ceased to operate. There was no legal basis for the appellate Authority to have thereafter directed continuation of the Administrator. As a result of the order passed by the appellate Authority the Board of Administrators has continued beyond the period for which it was initially appointed. Such course was not permissible and the management of the educational institution ought to have been handed over to the Society after expiry of the period of two years. He thus submitted that continuation of the Board of Administrators being contrary to the initial order appointing them was bad in law. The order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the appellate Authority was therefore liable to be set aside.
4. Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 supported the impugned order. Referring to the affidavit in reply filed by the third respondent, it was submitted that under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1976 the Board of Administrators could continue with the management of the educational institution for a maximum period of five years. The initial order passed by the Director had been subjected to challenge before the appellate Authority. Since the appeal was pending before the appellate Authority and it was decided only on 12.02.2021, the continuation of the Board of Administrators could not be faulted. The maximum period of five years would expire on 06.11.2022 after which the management of the educational institution would be handed over to the Society. Since the order passed by the Director was confirmed by the appellate Authority and the period of f........