Bombay High Court
NUTAN VIDHYALYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA SHELU THRUOGH ITS PRESIDENT AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the respondents must independently scrutinize the petitioners’ reimbursement proposals and, if entitlement is established, disburse the fees within the stipulated time‑frames.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of educational trusts and societies, sought reimbursement of fees for the 25 % of students admitted under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. They contended that the State of Maharashtra and the respective Zilla Parishads were obligated to refund the fees collected from these students. The respondents argued that the reimbursement claim required a detailed scrutiny of the petitions’ proposals before any payment could be ordered. The Court examined the provisions of the RTE Act, particularly the clause mandating reimbursement of fees for the stipulated quota, and held that the State and Zilla Parishads must independently evaluate the claims. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to complete their scrutiny and decide on the entitlement within four weeks, and if reimbursement is due, to disburse the amount within a further four weeks. The writ petitions were therefore disposed with specific directions for prompt action.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of Maharashtra and the Zilla Parishads are liable to reimburse fees collected from the 25 % of students admitted under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
Legislation cited
Subjects
- RTE Act
- fee reimbursement
- right to education
- writ petition
- Maharashtra
- Zilla Parishad
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:704-DB
p5 to p9.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 WRIT PETITION NO.299 OF 2026
Shivba Shikshan And Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Sanchalit School
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
...
Mr. D. B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
…
AND
6 WRIT PETITION NO.300 OF 2026
Nutan Vidhyalya Shikshan Sanstha Shelu Thruogh Its President And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
...
Mr. D. B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. A. R Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
…
AND
7 WRIT PETITION NO.301 OF 2026
Shree Samarath Yogabhyanand Yonkatnath Maharaj Deogaon Rangari Trust
Nagpur Thr Its President
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretory And Others
...
Mr. D. B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
…
AND
8 WRIT PETITION NO.302 OF 2026
Late Bapurao Patil Narwade Gram Vikas Sanstha Pachod Through Its Secretary
And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. D. B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. B. Girase, GP for Respondents/State.
Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
[1]
p5 to p9.odt
…
AND
9 WRIT PETITION NO.303 OF 2026
Balaghat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Pargaon Sanchalit School And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
...
Mr. D. B. Pokale, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 08 JANUARY 2026
ORDER :
. These are the petitions of reimbursement of fees in respect of 25%
students admitted by the petitioner/management under the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
2. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGPs waive notice for
respondents/State in respective petitions. Learned Advocates Mr. S. B.
Pulkundwar, Mr. A. R. Nikam, Mr. S. R. Dheple and Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi
waive notice for respondent No.4/Zilla Parishad in respective petitions.
3. We have heard both the sides.
4. We dispose of these writ petitions by directing the respondents to
undertake scrutiny of petitioners’ proposal independently on their own
[2]
p5 to p9.odt
merits and take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible and in
any case, within a period of (04) weeks from today and if the petitioners
are found entitled to get reimbursement, shall disburse the money to the
petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
[3]
Checking your session…