The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of approval and the impugned letter were not legally sustainable, and a mandamus cannot be issued to grant retrospective recognition on an aided basis.

JUDGMENT

Neela Gokhale, J. - Rule. Since there is an Affidavit in Reply, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioner impugns a letter dated 13th April 2004 issued by the 3rd Respondent, the Deputy Director of Education. The letter, directs the Education Officer, (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Thane and the Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation ('TMC') to convey to the Petitioner that the Petitioner school had unauthorisedly commenced the Ist standard classes after seven years without prior approval of the Government. Therefore, the Petitioner was directed to stop conducting classes for the Ist standard.

3. The Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"a. That writ of certiorari, for a writ in the nature of certiorari or for any other appropriate writ, direction or order be issued and the records and proceedings of the impugned letter dated 13/04/2004 issued by the Respondent no.3 be called for and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof the impugned letter dtd 13/04/2004 issued by the Respondent no. 3 be quashed and set aside.

b. That writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or for any other appropriate writ, direction or order be issued and the Respondents be directed to grant retrospective recognition to its 1st to 4th standards w.e.f. 1997-1998 on aided basis."

4. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Petitioner No.2 is a School managed by the Petitioner No. 1 trust. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the Education Officer and the Deputy Director of Education of the region in question respectively and the Respondent No. 4 is the State of Maharashtra.

5. Pursuant to an application made by the Petitioner, by a letter dated 27th September 1989, the Competent Authority granted permission to the Petitioner No.1 to open a primary school from the Ist standard on a non-grant basis. After complying with the necessary formalities, the Petitioner commenced the functioning of the primary school from June 1989.

6. Due to some difficulties, the Petitioner was constrained to stop the functioning of the School from the Academic Year 1990-91. The Petitioner re-started the Primary School from the Academic Year 1997-98 with Std. I.

7. Petitioner made representations dated 12th July 1999 and 11th October 2001 and sought permission to conduct classes of Std. II to Std. IV. Various representations were also made to other authorities of the State Government including the Minister in charge of the Education Department.

8. On consideration of a proposal by the Director of Education (Primary), a Government Resolution dated 9th April 2003, sanctioned 168 additional classes on a non-grant basis in primary or upper primary schools in the State. The Government Resolution listed the schools which were accorded the aforesaid sanction. The name of the Petitioner School was included in this list. Thus, the Petitioner started running the Primary School with Std. I to Std. IV from the Academic Year 1998-99. However, despite a number of requests the Respondent authorities failed to issue the said permissions/approval in writing in furtherance of the Government Resolution dated 9th April 2003.

9. Strangely, the Respondent No.3, by way of the impugned letter dated 13th April 2004, conveyed to the Petitioner No.1 Management that its primary school was 'unauthorized'. It is this letter that is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

10. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioners, Mr NV Bandiwadekar, contended that the order dated 13th April 2004 cannot be sustained since the Ist Std. of the Petitioner School had already been recognized by the Government in the Academic Year 1989-90. He further pointed out that the Government of Maharashtra, by its Government Resolution, has also granted recognition to the classes from Std. II to Std. IV and hence cancelling the said permission unilaterally was erroneous. The Petitioner had made representations dated 2nd September 2005 and 9th