M. R. Shah, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2356 of 2005 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein (the original writ petitioners), the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeal.
(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: It is the case on behalf of the appellants-original writ petitioners that the appellant-Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act came into existence by virtue of trust deed on 28.02.2000. That respondent No. 4 herein - Nasheman Welfare and Educational Society came into existence in the month of December, 1999. That, in the month of March 2001, the appellant-Trust started an Urdu Medium Secondary School. That the school is located in the slum area. That the school is in rental premises. 2.1 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that due to increasing number of students, the appellant-Trust was finding it difficult to accommodate all of its students, therefore, the original writ petitioners made an application on 25.07.2001 to the Collector of Greater Mumbai for a plot of land reserved for primacy school located at CTS No. 174, Kirol and CTS No. 351 Asalpha, Ghatkopar (the land in question). According to the appellant-Trust, on such an application, the Collector of the Greater Mumbai vide its communication dated 12.09.2001 forwarded the request of the appellant-Trust to the City Survey Officer, Ghatkopar and Tahsilder of Kurla and asked to conduct the inspection of the site and submit a report, if the said plot can be allotted to the appellant-Trust. That, on 13.12.2001, the Deputy Director of Education granted recognition on no grant basis to the classes of Standard-VIII of the Jawed Urdu High Court run by appellant-Trust from June 2000. That, on 02.04.2002, the Managing Trustee of the appellant-Trust made an application to the Collector of Greater Mumbai for allotment of plot in question for the primary school. The said application was submitted in Proforma-A. That, on 24.09.2002, the Deputy Education Inspector submitted his detailed report regarding details of Trust, requirements and financial status of the appellant-Trust and recommended to allot the land in question to the appellant-Trust. That, on 24.09.2002, the Managing Trustee of the appellant-Trust made an application to the Principal Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department for allotment of the plot in question. That, on 27.09.2002, the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board granted recognition to the appellant-Trust. It was the case on behalf the appellant-Trust that thereafter on 21.04.2003, the Managing Committee of the appellant-Trust again made an application to the Principal Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and submitted the required documents for allotment of the plot in question. That, on 28.04.2003, the appellant-Trust wrote a letter to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for allotment of the plot for Multi Medium Primary School. That, again on 02.05.2003, another application was made by the appellant-Trust for allotment of the plot in question. That, on 04.06.2003, the Corporation communicated to the appellant-Trust that, as per the policy of the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal school plot to be allotted to private educational institution is allotted by giving public advertisement in local newspaper for calling application from the interested educational institutions. 2.2 It was the case on behalf of the appellant-Trust that, in between, the appellant-Trust learnt that respondent No. 4 - Nasheman Education and Welfare Society located at Vikroli was being actively considered for allotment of the plot in question, though they were not involved in any educational activity and the aim and objects of respondent No. 4 also do not provide for running a primary school and, therefore, the appellant-Trust, through its Advocates gave a notice on 10.11.2003 to the respondents calling upon them to inform about the actual status of the plot in question within seven days and not to allot the plot of land to any society or institution without advertisement in local newspaper. That, in the month of February, 2004, the appellant-Trust filed Writ Petition No. 645 of 2004 before the High Court of Bombay for issue of a writ of Certiorari, Writ of Mandamus and an order of injunction from allotting the plot in question to respondent No. 4 or any other society/institution/person not conforming to the prescribed norms for allotment of the said plot. 2.3 That, by an order dated 24.06.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the said writ petition by quashing and setting aside the order of allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 and remanded the matter back to the Minister of Revenue. The Division Bench also directed the Minister of Revenue to consider the claim of the appellant-Trust on one hand and respondent No. 4 on the other, afresh. 2.4 It is the case on behalf of the appellant-Trust that thereafter the appellant-Trust submitted representation in support of its case. That, by an order dated 01.06.2005, the then Chief Minister and also the Revenue Minister passed an order to allot the land in question in favour of respondent No. 4 mainly on the ground that the appellant-Trust is already running a school, may be in the rented premises, however, respondent No. 4 proposes to establish a new primary school and it is the endeavour of the State to encourage the new institution. 2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the then Chief Minister and also the Revenue Minister dated 01.06.2005 allotting the land in question in favour of respondent No. 4, the appellants herein preferred Writ Petition No. 2356 of 2005 before the High Court. That, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition mainly and solely on the ground that, as such, the plot in question was reserved for the primary school in the development plan and that the appellant-Trust never applied for establishing the primary school, whereas respondent No. 4 has made representation for allotment of the plot for establishing a primary school.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeal.;