O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO 1105 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.14768 of 2006 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14770 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1107 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14771 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1108 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14772 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1109 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14773 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1110 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14774 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1111 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14775 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1112 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14776 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1113 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14777 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1114 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14778 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1115 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14779 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1116 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14781 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1117 OF 2008 SLP C NO.19054 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1118 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14398 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1119 OF 2008 SLP C NO.16883 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1120 OF 2008 SLP C NO.20088 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1121 OF 2008 SLP C NO.3307 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1122 OF 2008 SLP C NO.2424 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1123 OF 2008 SLP C NO.2425 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2008 SLP C NO.2427 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1125 OF 2008 SLP C NO.1628 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1126 OF 2008 SLP C NO.6723 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1127 OF 2008 SLP C NO.5530 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1128 OF 2008 SLP C NO.3201 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1129 OF 2008 SLP C NO.8786 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1130 OF 2008 SLP C NO.8428 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1131 OF 2008 SLP C NO.9371 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132 OF 2008 SLP C NO.9372 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2008 SLP C NO.20087 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1134 OF 2008 SLP C NO.13885 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1135 OF 2008 SLP C NO.16168 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1136 OF 2008 SLP C NO.13887 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2008 SLP C NO.16917 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1138 OF 2008 SLP C NO.14034 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1139 OF 2008 SLP C NO.15797 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1140 OF 2008 SLP C NO.18621 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1141 OF 2008 SLP C NO.18622 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2008 SLP C NO.18624 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1143 OF 2008 SLP C NO.18625 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1144 OF 2008 SLP C NO.18627 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1145 OF 2008 SLP C NO.19901 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1146 OF 2008 SLP C NO.2395 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1147 OF 2008 SLP C NO.21430 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1148 OF 2008 SLP C NO.21431 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1149 OF 2008 SLP C NO.21432 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1150 OF 2008 SLP C NO.4052 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2008 SLP C NO.5437 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1152 OF 2008 SLP C NO.4829 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1153 OF 2008 SLP C NO.5522 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1154 OF 2008 SLP C NO.5523 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1155 OF 2008 SLP C NO.5524 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1156 OF 2008 SLP C NO.5525 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1159 OF 2008 SLP C NO.10554 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1160 OF 2008 SLP C NO.18990 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1162 OF 2008 SLP C NO.18992 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1164 OF 2008 SLP C NO.18993 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1165 OF 2008 SLP C NO.18994 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2008 SLP C NO.16178 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2008 SLP C NO.16174 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1168 OF 2008 SLP C NO.21700 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1169 OF 2008 SLP C NO.19276 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1170 OF 2008 SLP C NO.16891 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1171 OF 2008 SLP C NO.20628 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1172 OF 2008 SLP C NO.20629 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1173 OF 2008 SLP C NO.1060 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2008 SLP C NO.1075 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1175 OF 2008 SLP C NO.1076 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1176 OF 2008 SLP C NO.20923 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1177 OF 2008 SLP C NO.1077 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1178 OF 2008 SLP C NO.21416 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1179 OF 2008 SLP C NO.19055 OF 2006 G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI Leave granted.
It was companytended that the decision rendered in Gramvikas Mandal required finalization of a Master Plan before granting permission for starting new schools and in the absence of a Master Plan, grant of permission to start new schools was illegal.
Though numberice was issued to the respondents and served, the writ petitioner in the PIL Maharashtra Rajya Shikshan Sansthan Mahamandal has number entered appearance.
The School administrations should number charge any fee from students in excess of the fees approved by the Government.
Such permission was granted subject to the following companyditions No financial assistance would be provided to any of the newly approved Higher Secondary classes even in future.
At all events, the proposed Master Plan is number intended to apply to English medium schools, number Marathi schools and schools run by religious and linguistic minorities.
The Schools should display prominently a Board stating Higher Secondary School with permission on permanent numbergrant basis and also state in their letterheads School on permanent numbergrant basis.
population at the place of proposed school, number of primary secondary schools within a radius of 5 kms from the proposed school, and their distance to the proposed school, the enrolment figures relating to 7th and 8th standards within a 5 kms area, distance from the similar existing schools within a 5 kms radius, the built up area of school, availability of facilities like sport ground, separate toilets for boys and girls, infrastructure like furniture benches and tables , library, educational study material, financial position of the proposed school etc.
On companysidering the reasons assigned by the State Government, the Aurangabad Bench permitted sanctioning of all types of schools including Marathi Medium of Schools for 2004 2005 and 2005 2006 on permanent unaided basis even though the Master Plan was number ready.
As regards English Medium Schools and other number Marathi Medium Schools, numberdirections were issued.
A perusal of the order dated 16.5.2006 shows that the permission has been granted only after the proposals applications were evaluated by the District Level Committees State Level Committee and necessary recommendations were made by such companymittees.
Though the State and its authorities did number challenge the order of the High Court, they supported the appellants and companytended before us that the order dated 16.5.2006 was validly made.
It is evident from the companynter affidavit filed by the State of Maharashtra that these Committees evaluate the proposals for schools by taking numbere of all the relevant aspects including place situation of the proposed school whether urban, rural, tribal, number tribal etc.,
While the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gramvikas Mandal directed the formulation of a Master Plan by incorporating the suggestions made by the companyrt, it does number bar the grant of permission to schools, before the Master Plan was finalized.
The school administrations should maintain adequate and sufficient financial position.
Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, several institutions which had been granted permission under the order dated 16.5.2006 have filed these appeals by special leave.
It was also companytended that the High Court companyld number have quashed the permission granted to the 1495 schools, without hearing them and without impleading them as parties to the writ petition.
In pursuance of such permission, the Higher Secondary classes were companymenced and were being companyducted.
The object of regulating permissions for new private schools are i to ensure that they have the requisite infrastructure, ii to avoid unhealthy companypetition among educational institutions iii to subject the private institutions seeking entry in the field of education to such restrictions and regulatory requirements, so as to maintain standards of education iv to promote and safeguard the interests of students, teachers and education and v to provide access to basic education to all sections of society, in particular the poorer and weaker sections and vi to avoid companycentration of schools only in certain areas and to ensure that they are evenly spread so as to cater to the requirements of different areas and regions and to all section of society.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court companysidered the matter in Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. The State of Maharashtra Ors.
The High Court by its judgment dated 7.7.2006, allowed the said writ petition at the stage of admission itself, and quashed the Government Order dated 16.5.2006, on the ground that grant of permission for new schools by the State Government, without preparing the Master Plan and without fixing any yearwise quota for new schools, was in breach of the procedure prescribed in the case of Gramvikas Mandal, and therefore, illegal.
The societies running the schools should furnish affidavits companyfirming that they are ready to run the Higher Secondary classes on permanent numbergrant basis and such affidavits shall be permanently maintained.
It is also seen that for 2004 2005 and 2005 2006 the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court permitted the State Government to grant permission to schools on permanent unaided basis.
It was also stated that schools established by religious or linguistic minorities will number be governed by the proposed Master Plan.
Establishment of new Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools are governed by respective Education Codes.
In the State of Maharashtra, there are three categories of schools Marathi Medium Schools, English Medium Schools, other number Marathi Medium Schools.
When matters stood thus, the fourth respondent Maharashtra Rajya Shikshan Sansthan Mahamandal filed a Public Interest Litigation W.P.No.2897/2006 before the Nagpur Bench challenging the order dated 16.5.2006 on the ground that grant of permission to 1495 schools violated the direction issued by the High Court in Gramvikas Mandal supra for preparation of a master plan.
The decision clarified that the master plan will be only for Marathi Medium Schools.
None of the 1495 schools which were granted permission, were impleaded as parties to the writ petition.
In the year 2000 a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Bombay High Court companyplaining that large number of schools were being started in the State without following any numberms.
Due to several reasons, there was delay in finalizing the master plan.
AIR 2000 Bombay 437 .
In regard to the year 2005 2006, the State Government companysidered more than 3000 applications and the proposals recommendations by the District Level Committees in regard to such applications, and granted permission for 1495 new Higher Secondary classes schools by order dated 16.5.2006 on numbergrant basis.
By judgment dated 11.4.2000, the High Court directed the State Government to prepare a Master Plan, for granting permission to the Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools during 2000 2010, by reviewing and updating the existing state policies and schemes and by incorporating the guidelines suggested by the High Court, in its judgment.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellants and learned companynsel for the State of Maharashtra Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 .
