GAUTAM DADA VACHANALAYA MANDAL THROUGH ITS SECRETATRY SURESH GAUTAM KAMBLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:31079
                                                  1                       WP-4331-15.odt




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                   WRIT PETITION NO.4331 OF 2015

                Gautam Dada Vachanalaya Mandal,
                Kaudgaon, Taluka Paranda,
                District Osmanabad
                Through Its Secretary
                Suresh Gautam Kamble,
                Age 46 years, Occu. Agri.                        ..    Petitioner

                            Versus

                1. The State of Maharashtra
                   Through its Secretary
                   Higher and Technical Education Departments
                   Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

                2. The Director of Libraries
                   Directorate of Libraries,
                   Maharashtra State,
                   Nagar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 023

                3. The Assistant Director of Libraries
                   Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad
                   Savarkar Chowk, Samartha Nagar
                   Aurangabad

                4. The Assistant Charity Commissioner
                   Osmanabad, District Osmanabad                 ..    Respondents

                Mr. Sanjay A. Wakure, Advocate for Petitioner;
                Mr. B. V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for Respondents


                                           CORAM :        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                           DATE       :   10-07-2026
                JUDGMENT:-

                1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.       By consent of the

                parties, heard finally.
                                   2                       WP-4331-15.odt



2.    The petitioner has raised the following prayer;

      “B. By issuing writ of certiorari, or any other writ,
           order or directions in like nature, the impugned
           Order dated 25 August 2014 passed by the
           Hon’ble Minister, Higher and Technical Education
           Department, Maharashtra State, in Appeal No.84
           of 2014 and the order dated 31.12.2013 passed
           by the learned In-charge Director of Libraries,
           Directorate   of    Libraries,   Maharashtra   State
           bearing   Outward       No.32/SMR/2013-14/16434-
           17002, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”


3.    The petitioner is a registered trust, operating public library.

While receiving regular grant-in-aid from the State. Pursuant to

directive dated 28.12.2011, the Revenue Department conducted a

verification drive of public libraries across the State between

21.05.2012 and 25.05.2012, during which certain structural

shortcomings were allegedly noticed in the petitioner's operations.


4.    Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice dated

30.03.2013, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation

clarifying that the alleged errors were either mistakenly recorded

or had been rectified.        Subsequently, on 13.05.2013, during

inspection conducted, recorded that the petitioner library was

functioning satisfactorily, supported by certificates issued by local

village authorities. However, ignoring this positive assessment,

respondent No. 2 issued impugned order dated 31.12.2013,
                                   3                         WP-4331-15.odt



cancelling the petitioner’s recognition without affording a proper

opportunity of a hearing.


5.    Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.84 of

2014 before the Hon'ble Minister which came to be dismissed by

the order under challenge. Hence, the petitioner is before this

Court.


6.    The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits

that the orders under challenge are perverse and rendered in

violation of the principles of natural justice. The initial verification

from was a generalized drive and any minor deficiencies found

were immediately cured by the petitioner through subsequent

representations. The Inspection Officer, upon evaluating the library

in   May    2013,   certified   that   the   library   was   functioning

satisfactorily.


7.    It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 acted

outside the scope of fair play by completely ignoring this positive

report and cancelling the recognition without granting a personal

hearing. The Hon'ble Minister conducted an expedited mass

hearing of several appeals from the Aurangabad Region on a given

single day, resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner.


8.    In support of the contentions, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner places heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court in
                                      4                          WP-4331-15.odt



the case of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vachnalaya Library v. The

State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 1576 of 2014, dated

23.07.2014,    wherein       categorically    set   aside   a   similar   de-

recognition order.


9.    Per contra, Learned A.G.P. has supported the order under

challenge and submitted that by the noting the deficiencies in the

Petitioner-libarary, the de-recognition order came to be passed.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.


10.   Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned

Counsel for the litigating sides, and upon perusal of the material

placed on record, indicates an undisputed fact that while the initial

verification drive in May 2012 pointed out certain administrative

errors, a subsequent field inspection was conducted by the

Inspection    Officer   in      May       2013.   That   inspection    report

unequivocally recorded that the petitioner library was functioning

satisfactorily. Despite this clear and positive finding by its own field

officer, the Respondent No. 2 proceeded to issue the order dated

31.12.2013, cancelling the recognition in total disregard of its own

records.


11.   It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that an

authority cannot act in total ignorance with the positive reports

submitted by its own officials.              In the present case, the

cancellation order is entirely silent in relation to the inspection
                                    5                        WP-4331-15.odt



report dated 13.05.2013 was overlooked. Further, the statutory

framework governing withdrawal mandates strict compliance with

the rules of natural justice.


12.     This issue is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vachnalaya Library (supra), where this

Court,    dealing   with   an   identical   cancellation   order   dated

31.12.2013, held that where the procedure contemplated under

the rules is bypassed and principles of natural justice are violated,

the order becomes legally untenable and must be set aside. The

ratio of the said judgment applies with full force to the present

case.


13.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition stands

allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”.


14.     Rule is made absolute, accordingly.


15.     No order as to the costs.




                                    [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
                                            JUDGE

rrd