Bombay High Court
LAXMAN DANGE SEVABHAVI BAHUDDESHIYA SANSTHA THR ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASHOK R GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The State must independently scrutinise the reimbursement claims of the petitioners and, if they are found eligible, reimburse the fees within the stipulated time‑frame.
Summary
Several educational societies filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court seeking reimbursement of fees paid for the 25% of students admitted under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The petitioners argued that the State of Maharashtra was obligated to refund these fees, while the State contended that the matter required verification of eligibility. The Court examined the statutory mandate of the RTE Act and the State's duty to ensure financial compliance for the stipulated quota. It held that the State must independently scrutinise each petitioner's claim on its merits. Accordingly, the Court directed the State authorities to complete the scrutiny within four weeks and, if reimbursement is warranted, to disburse the amounts within a further four weeks. The writ petitions were consequently disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of Maharashtra is liable to reimburse fees paid by educational institutions for the 25% RTE quota.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to reimbursement under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
- Whether the State must conduct an independent, merit‑based scrutiny of the reimbursement claims.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- RTE Act
- fee reimbursement
- educational institutions
- writ petition
- state liability
- public interest litigation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40343-DB
1 12-WP-11077-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
12 WRIT PETITION NO. 11077 OF 2026
SAVITRIBAI PHULE BAHUUDDESHIY MANDAL THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
…
13 WRIT PETITION NO. 11078 OF 2026
SAVITRIBAI PHULE BAHUUDDESHIY MANDAL THR ITS SECRETARY
VIKAS P SAWAI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
…
18 WRIT PETITION NO. 11084 OF 2026
MUNJESHWAR EDUCATION SOCIETY, AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
...
21 WRIT PETITION NO. 11087 OF 2026
SAMTA URBAN CHARITABLE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State
...
26 WRIT PETITION NO. 11092 OF 2026
SWA. LAXMAN DANGE SEVABHAVI BAHUDDESHIYA SANSTHA
THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. M. K. Goyanka, AGP for Respondents/State
SVH
2 12-WP-11077-26.odt
27 WRIT PETITION NO. 11093 OF 2026
JAI BHADRA BAHUUDDESHIYA SAMAJIK SANSTHA THROUGH ITS
PRESIDENT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
...
43 WRIT PETITION NO. 11109 OF 2026
WAKESHWAR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State
...
45 WRIT PETITION NO. 11111 OF 2026
VARDHMAN MEDICAL AND EDUCATION SANSTHA THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED PERSON
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State
...
49 WRIT PETITION NO. 11115 OF 2026
SANT BHAGWANBABA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL THROUGH ITS
TRUSTEE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Milind M. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner in All WPs
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in All WPs
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. It is a matter of reimbursement of fees in respect of
SVH
3 12-WP-11077-26.odt
25% students admitted by the petitioners Institutions under the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned AGP
for State and learned advocate for respondent No.4.
3. The writ petitions are disposed of by directing
respondent authorities to undertake scrutiny of the petitioners’
proposals independently, on their own merit and decide the same
as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four
weeks from today and if petitioners are found entitled to get
reimbursement, shall disburse the money to them within a period of
four weeks thereafter.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…