The objection to the companytinuation of the appellants school is only by the first respondent which is a rival school.
When the matter was heard today, learned companynsel appearing for the State Government submitted that between the period when the appellant originally sought permission and number, the demand for schools in the area has grown and in fact the area requires more schools and the State has numberobjection for the companytinuation of the appellants school.
The order of the High Court is challenged by the appellant in this appeal by special leave.
However, later, the State Government by order dated 20.7.2001 withdrew the cancellation.
The Bombay High Court, by its judgment dated 19.7.2000, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 29.5.1999 with a direction to companysider the appellants application by giving a hearing to the appellant as well as the first respondent and then pass appropriate orders.
Thereafter, the third respondent heard the parties and by order dated 20.4.2001, cancelled the permission granted to the appellant.
However, on 9.8.2002, the High Court allowed the second writ petition filed by the first respondent and set aside the order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the Government whereby the cancellation dated 20.4.2001 was withdrawn.
It is also companytended that the appellant had adopted illegal and irregular means for getting the permission to start the school.
The resultant position is that the appellant, who was granted permission to run the school on 21.5.1999, has been companytinuously running the secondary school for about eight years, with short periods of cancellation.
On 29.5.1999, permission was granted to the appellant to run a companyeducation school.
The appellant sought permission to start a new secondary school for girls in Nagaj.
The first respondent, who was already running a secondary school at Nagaj, challenged the grant of such permission.
On 20.1.2003, while granting leave, this Court stayed the order of the High Court and permitted the appellant to run the school in accordance with the regulations.
Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent again approached the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.854/2002.
2 Committee reconsidered the application and passed a resolution dated 10.7.2002 recommending the grant of permission.
The objection is on the ground that there is numberneed 3.
3 for any new school and that a new school will lead to unhealthy companypetition and may also result in existing school being closed.
During the pendency of the said petition, the district level 2.
