Bombay High Court
MAULI BAHUUDDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA THR ITS SECRETARY VIKAS B KOKATE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The State must independently scrutinize the institutions' reimbursement proposals and, if justified, disburse the fees within the time‑frames specified.
Summary
Several educational institutions filed writ petitions seeking reimbursement of fees paid for 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. The State contended that the reimbursement claims required proper scrutiny and were not automatically payable. The Court examined whether the statutory provisions of the RTE Act imposed a duty on the State to reimburse such fees and emphasized the need for an independent assessment of each petitioner's claim. It held that the State must scrutinize the proposals on their merits and, if entitlement is established, disburse the reimbursement promptly. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent authorities to complete the scrutiny and decide within four weeks, and to pay any due amounts within a further four weeks.
Issues considered
- What is the extent of the State's liability to reimburse fees under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009?
- Whether the reimbursement claims require independent scrutiny before payment can be ordered?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Right to Education
- fee reimbursement
- RTE Act
- writ petition
- educational institutions
- Maharashtra
- judicial review
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:44506-DB
1 9-WP-12424-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12424 OF 2026
SRI SRI RAVISHANKAR VIDYA MANDIR, SANGAMNER THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Ajinkya Kale, Advocate h/f Talekar and Associates for the
Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State
...
27 WRIT PETITION NO. 12588 OF 2026
MAULI BAHUUDDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA, GEORAI THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. M. K. Goyanka, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4
...
28 WRIT PETITION NO. 12590 OF 2026
SHRI GANESH SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, BAJAJ NAGAR
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No.4
...
30 WRIT PETITION NO. 12603 OF 2026
LATE. LAXMIBAI DESHMUKH SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, PARALI
(V), THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4
…
SVH
2 9-WP-12424-26.odt
WRIT PETITION NO.12887 OF 2026
KRUSHANKESARIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA, DHARUR THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4
…
WRIT PETITION NO. 12886 OF 2026
SYNERGY FOUNDATION AMBAJOGAI, DIST. BEED THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. S. S. Joshi, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4
…
WRIT PETITION NO.12889 OF 2026
DNYANVIDHYA BAHUUDDESHIYA SANSTHA, ASHIVI KHURD
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No.4
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. It is a matter of reimbursement of fees in respect of the
students admitted by the petitioners Institutions under the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
SVH
3 9-WP-12424-26.odt
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned AGP
for the State and learned advocates for respondent No.4.
3. The writ petitions are disposed of by directing the
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 the date of receipt of copy of this order. If petitioners
are found entitled to get reimbursement, the same shall be
disbursed the petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…