LexSUPERSTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. 1 [2008] 1 S.C.R. 908 SUPERSTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY . v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.1105 of 2008) JANUARY 16, 2008 (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) Education/Educational Institutions: A B Establishment of new Primary, Secondary and Higher C . Secondary Schools in State o' Maharashtra - Bombay High Court in Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Manda/* case suggesting guidelines and directing State Government to prepare a Master Plan for schools of Marathi medium and for granting permission to such schools during 2000-2010 - D Delay in finalizing Master Plan - Aurangabad Bench of High Court permitting State Government to grant sanction to all types of Schools of English medium, non-English medium and Marathi medium for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 on permanent non-grant basis - Government issuing Order dated E 16. 5. 2006 granting permission for 1495 new schools on 'non- grant' basis subject to the conditions enumerate.d in the Order - Writ petition filed challenging the Government Order as violative. of directions in Gramvikas Manda/* - Nagpur Bench of High Court quashing the Government Order - Held: On F facts, the assumption that the Order dated 16.5.2006 violated the order in Gramvikas Manda/ does not appear to be sound - The High Court has quashed the Order dated 16.5.2006 without even noticing that many of the schools which have been permitted under the said order, were English medium G schools or non-Marathi schools or schools run by religious and linguistic minorities, which were not intended to be covered by the proposed Master Plan - It also failed to notice that any delay in drafting or finalizing the MasterPlan cannot be a bar 908 H 909 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 1 S.C.R. A for new schools being permitted, particularly in view of the >- • subsequent orders of the Aurangabad bench - When the permission had been accorded and schools had started functioning on that basis, the High Court ought not to have quashed the permission granted to those 1495 schodls, without B impleading the schools or without hearing them - It is the duty of the State Government to provide access to education - Unless new schools in the private sector are permitted it will not be possible for the State to discharge its constitutional obligation - Permission has been granted to 1495 new schools c under the Order dated 16. 5. 2006 on permanent no-grant basis without any financial commitment or liability on the part of the State Government, even in future, and at the same time ensuring that the schools follow the parameters and conditions prescribed by the Education Code, reserving liberty to the 0 authorities to take appropriate action, should there be any violation - The said order does not contravene any provision of law - The Government Order dated 16.5.2006 permitting new schools will, therefore, continue to be in force - However, it is made clear, if any school is found to have flouted or not fulfilled the parameters prescribed by the Education Code or E the conditions stipulated by the State Government in the Order dated 16. 5. 2006, the authorities concerned or the State Government will be at liberty to take appropriate action against the defaulting schools, including cancellation of the permission - Objects of regulating permission for new private schools, F enumerated - Impugned order set aside - Principles of natural ;ustice - Practice and Procedure - lmpleadment of necessary parties. *Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Manda! vs. The State of G Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2000 Bombay 437 - referred to. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1105 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 7. 7 .2006 of the H High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in SUPERSTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.] W.P. No. 2897/2006. WITH 910 A C.A. Nos.1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, B 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1157, 1159, 1160, 1162, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178 and 1179 of 2008. c C.A. Sundram, Yashwant Das, Jaideep Gupta, Colin Gonsalves, M.N. Rao, Yashovant Das, Sanj
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.