Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

MAURYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST DELHIS TAKSHILA SCHOOL THR ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SHUBHAM M DHOIPHODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the State must scrutinise each petitioner's claim and, if entitled, reimburse the fees within the time‑frames specified.

Summary

Three writ petitions were filed by private schools alleging that, despite admitting students under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the State of Maharashtra had not reimbursed the statutory fees. The High Court noted the uniform grievance and the need for prompt compliance with the Act. It directed the State authorities to examine each school's claim on its own merits and to make a decision within four weeks. If the schools are found entitled, the Court ordered the State to disburse the reimbursement within a further four weeks. The petitions were disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

  • Whether the State of Maharashtra is obligated under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to reimburse fees to private schools admitting students.
  • Whether the delay in reimbursement constitutes a violation of the statutory duty imposed by the Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Right to Education
  • fee reimbursement
  • writ petition
  • statutory duty
  • High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:31680-DB


                                                 *1*                        63


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               63 WRIT PETITION NO. 8430 OF 2026

                    Maurya Educational Trust Delhis Takshila School Thr Its
                         Administrative Officer Shubham M Dhoiphode
                                            VERSUS
                 The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
                                             Others
                                               ...
                Mr. Prashant R. Nangare, Advocate for the Petitioner
                Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondents/State
                Mr. Santosh B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No.4
                                               …
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 8616 OF 2026

                                      New English School
                                           VERSUS
                    The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
                                              ...
                Ms. Devika Patil h/f. Mr. Yogesh M. Patil, Advocate for the
                Petitioner
                Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondents/State
                Ms. Archana J. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
                                              …
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 8634 OF 2026

                             Shri. Sai English Medium School and Ors.
                                              VERSUS
                             The State Of Maharashtra Through & Ors.
                                                 ...
                Ms. Devika Patil h/f. Mr. Yogesh M. Patil, Advocate for the
                Petitioner
                Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondents/State
                Mr. V. V. Gujar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5
                                                 ...
                                   CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                           ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                   DATE : 27th JULY 2026


                Narwade
                                        *2*                             63




P. C. :-

1.         In all these petitions by the individual institutions

common grievance has been made that inspite of having

admitted students under the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009,               they have not been

reimbursed the fees as per the statute.

2.         The Principal Seat, as also all the benches have been in

similar fact and situation directing the authorities to consider

the individual proposals and to take appropriate decision within

a stipulated time. We follow the course.

3.         Writ petitions are disposed of with following directions :


              The respondent/authorities shall undertake scrutiny of
     each of the petitioners’ proposals independently on their own
     merits and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and
     in any case within a period of four (04) weeks from today
     and shall disburse the money to them if they are found
     entitled to within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter.




(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)               (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




Narwade


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.