RAVINDRA BAJRANG ALIAS GHOTU BHANAWAT AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:39613-DB
                                                     (1)                            90wp4326.24




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               90 WRIT PETITION NO. 4326 OF 2024
                         Ravindra Bajrang Alias Ghotu Bhanawat And Another
                                                                     ….Petitioners
                                              VERSUS

                        The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
                                                                     …..Respondents


                Mr. B. R. Warma, Advocate for the Petitioners
                Mrs. N. B. Kamble, AGP for the respondents/State

                                       CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                               ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.
                                           DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026


                PER COURT :

                1.           This Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

                             A]      By issuing writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or directions
                             or orders in the like nature, impugned order dated 12-05-2022
                             passed by R-2/Dy. Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra, appointing
                             administrator for administering school “Prathamik/Secondary” and
                             Uccha Madhyamik Ashramshala, Maudkhed, Dist. Nanded” may
                             pleased be quashed and set aside.
                             B]      The R-3/Competent authority be directed to review and
                             reconsider grievances of complaint and explanation of Petitioners
                             and to pass lawful orders u/s 3 of Maharashtra Educational
                             Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 by following principles of
                             natural justice.



                2.           Learned Advocate for the Petitioners by relying on the

                order passed by this Court in writ Petition No. 11062/2023 submits

                that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction.



                                                                                              1 of 5
                                    (2)                                90wp4326.24




3.          Learned AGP strenuously opposed the Petition stating

that there is dispute going on between the Management and

therefore, it was necessary to appoint the Administrator.

4.          We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners

and the learned AGP and also perused the grounds raised in the

Petition, annextures thereto and order dated 10-11-2023 passed in

writ Petition No. 11062/2023.

5.          In the said order this Court has observed as follows:

            11.Obviously, neither the impugned order nor the affidavit in reply
            expressly mention as to under which provision the impugned
            order/communication      has    been     issued   for    appointing     the
            administrator. In the absence of which, since it is a matter
            regarding appointment of administrator over an ashram school
            governed by the Code, all such powers could only be traced to
            clause 3.2. Clause 3.2 of the Code, made available to us is in
            Marathi, and roughly translated, reads as under:-
            “3.2 Appointment of Administrator As per the provisions of the
            Maharashtra Educational Institutes (Management) Act, 1976 or the
            rules, government decisions, orders issued by the Government from
            time   to   time   in   this   regard,   Assistant      Director/Assistant
            Commissioner (Group A/B), may appoint an administrator or a
            board of administration comprising of District Social Welfare
            Officer (Group A/B), Authority running Excellent Ashram Schools
            or the Principal or the Administrative Board/Committee comprising
            more than one member or the Authority appointed by the
            Government for following reasons:-
                   i) Disputes or disagreements in the management of a
                   government- recognised registered organization
                   ii) Not providing necessary physical facilities to the
                   students.

                                                                                  2 of 5
                           (3)                            90wp4326.24



           iii) Academic loss of the students due to internal disputes or
           disagreements within the institution.
           iv) Disagreement or disputes between the institution and
           the Ashram School staff.
           v) Educational loss to students and staff due to
           mismanagement in the institution/ ashram school
           vi) Institution/Ashram/Management not complying with
           the rules and regulations of the government
           vii) Difficulty for the institution/management to run the
           day-to-day operations of the ashram school
           viii) Neglect of the institution/management towards the
           ashram school, staff and the students.
           ix) Not making adequate arrangements for accommodation,
           food, breakfast etc. of the students
           x) Not protecting students, not taking care of their health,
           starving of the students, physically and mentally abusing
           the students
           xi) Financial exploitation of staff, students and parents
           xii) Embezzlement of the government funds, amounts
12.        A plain reading of this provision clearly shows that it is only
the Assistant Director or the Assistant Commissioner (Group A / B)
or District Social Welfare Officer (Group A / B), who have been
empowered to appoint the administrator which can be the officers
of the management running an ashram school or a board consisting
of headmaster and one or more of the members or a government
nominee. The impugned communication issued by the Respondent
no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 is in the reverse order. The secretary
of the Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department has by the
impugned communication appointed the respondent no. 2 who is
the Regional Deputy Director as the administrator. Irrespective of
the sustainability of the reason for invoking the power under clause
3.2, when this provision expressly requires and empowers only the
specific     authorities    to   pass   the   orders,    the   impugned
communication / order is clearly sans any power.


                                                                       3 of 5
                                    (4)                           90wp4326.24



            13. Again, even if the afore-mentioned aspect is overlooked for the
            sake of arguments, clause 3.2 lays down 12 instances as a sine qua
            non for invoking the power for appointment of an administrator. Ex
            facie, the allegations about a teacher having worked at two places
            to the knowledge of the headmaster is a circumstance not
            contemplated in any of these clauses. Even the impugned
            communication does not expressly mention as to under which of
            these categories alleged misconduct of the teacher and the
            headmaster would fall. Even the affidavit in reply is conspicuously
            silent and does not seek to address this issue.
            14.    If such is the state-of-affairs, where the impugned order
            appointing the administrator has originated in the office of the
            respondent no.1, who had no power to pass it by resorting to
            clause 3.2 and when the reasons which had prompted him to pass
            the order cannot fit in to the categories of the instances covered by
            that clause, the impugned order, besides being without power, is
            not sustainable on merits.
6.          In that case also the Petitioner-Management running a

Residential School (Aashram School) governed by Aashram School

Code.

7.          Since this Court has already taken a view that

appointment of Administrator cannot be made by Respondent No. 1,

the impugned order cannot be sustained.

8.          The writ Petition is therefore allowed.

9.          The impugned order dated 12-05-2022 is hereby

quashed and set aside.

10.         The Respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders

by following legal provisions.


                                                                           4 of 5
                                    (5)                       90wp4326.24




11.              We make it clear that even if the Petitioners take charge,

no policy decision shall be taken.




[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ]                 [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]



VishalK/90wp4326.24




                                                                      5 of 5