IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2003

MARUTI  DADA  PATIL  SARVANGIN VIKAS SANSTHA

.......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

HANUMAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

The appellant sought permission to start a new secondary school for girls in

Nagaj.  On 29.5.1999,  permission was granted to the appellant to run a co-education

school.  The first respondent,  who was already running a secondary school at Nagaj,

challenged the grant of such permission.  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 consider the appellant's 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,  later,  the  State  Government  by  order  dated

20.7.2001 withdrew the cancellation.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent again approached the Bombay High

Court in W.P. No.854/2002.  During the   pendency  of  the  said  petition,  the  district

level  

.......2.

- 2 -

Committee  reconsidered  the  application  and  passed  a  resolution  dated  10.7.2002

recommending the grant of permission.  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withdrawn.  The order of the High Court is challenged by the appellant in this appeal by

special leave.  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.

3. The resultant position is that the appellant, who was granted permission to

run the school on 21.5.1999,  has been continuously running the secondary school for

about eight years, with short periods of cancellation.  When the matter was heard today,

learned counsel appearing for the State Government submitted that between the period

when the appellant originally sought permission and now, the demand for schools in the

area has grown and in fact the area requires more schools and the State has no objection

for the continuation of the appellant's school.

4. The  objection  to the continuation of the appellant's school is  only  by  the

first respondent which is a rival school.   The objection is on the ground that there is no

need  

...........3.

- 3 -

for any new school and that a new school will lead to unhealthy competition and may

also result in existing school being closed.  It is also contended that the appellant had

adopted illegal and irregular means for getting the permission to start the school.

5. The contention of the first respondent that there is no need for school has lost

relevance in view of the specific stand of the State Government that in fact these two

schools  are  not  sufficient  and  that  further  schools  are  needed  in  the  area.   The

apprehension that a new school may lead to unhealthy competition and closure of the

existing school is  baseless,  as competition improves efficiency and excellence and the

existence  of  appellant's  school  for  nearly  eight  years,  has  not  affected  the  first

respondent's  school.  No prejudice is  caused to the first respondent by the appellant

continuing its school. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the school has

been running for more than five years.  It is also not in dispute that the appellant has

also constructed buildings and provided infrastructure required for the school and it has

been running for quite some time.  In these peculiar circumstances, it is not necessary to

examine the several technical objections of the first respondent.

......4.

- 4 -

6. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and

permit  the  appellant  to  continue the  school  in  accordance with  the  regulations,  in

pursuance of permission already granted.

  ...........................J.    ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    ...........................J. July 03, 2008.              ( P. SATHASIVAM )