Holding

The order granting permission to 1,495 schools on a permanent no‑grant basis is valid and does not violate the Gramvikas judgment; the High Court’s quashing of the order is set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a challenge to the Maharashtra Government's order dated 16 May 2006 that granted permission to 1,495 new higher secondary schools on a permanent no‑grant basis, subject to conditions under the Education Code and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977. The petitioners argued that the order violated the Bombay High Court’s Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Manda judgment, which required a master plan for Marathi‑medium schools before new schools could be approved. The Court held that the master plan was intended only for Marathi‑medium schools and did not apply to English‑medium, other non‑Marathi, or minority‑run schools, and that the delay in finalising the plan could not bar the issuance of permissions. It further observed that the High Court had quashed the order without impleading the schools or hearing them, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the 2006 order, and clarified that the State could withdraw permission if schools later failed to comply with the prescribed conditions.

Issues considered

The State could grant permission to new schools without a finalized master plan as required by the Gramvikas judgment.
Whether the master plan mandated by Gramvikas applies to English‑medium, non‑Marathi and minority schools.
Whether the High Court could quash the 2006 order without impleading the schools and hearing them.
Whether the 2006 order contravenes any statutory provision of the Education Code or the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Education lawPrivate schoolsMaster planNo‑grant basisConstitutional obligationNatural justicePublic interest litigationRegulatory compliance

Judgment

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 908

.. 1 SUPERSTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY A
. v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.1105 of 2008)
JANUARY 16, 2008
B
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND
J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.)

Education/Educational Institutions:
Establishment of new Primary, Secondary and Higher C.
Secondary Schools in State o' Maharashtra - Bombay High
Court in Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Manda/* case
suggesting guidelines and directing State Government to
prepare a Master Plan for schools of Marathi medium and for
granting permission to such schools during 2000-2010 - D
Delay in finalizing Master Plan - Aurangabad Bench of High
Court permitting State Government to grant sanction to all
types of Schools of English medium, non-English medium
and Marathi medium for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 on
permanent non-grant basis - Government issuing Order dated E
16. 5. 2006 granting permission for 1495 new schools on 'non-
grant' basis subject to the conditions enumerate.d in the Order
- Writ petition filed challenging the Government Order as
violative. of directions in Gramvikas Manda/* - Nagpur Bench
of High Court quashing the Government Order - Held: On F
facts, the assumption that the Order dated 16.5.2006 violated
the order in Gramvikas Manda/ does not appear to be sound
- The High Court has quashed the Order dated 16.5.2006
without even noticing that many of the schools which have
been permitted under the said order, were English medium G
schools or non-Marathi schools or schools run by religious
and linguistic minorities, which were not intended to be covered
by the proposed Master Plan - It also failed to notice that any
delay in drafting or finalizing the MasterPlan cannot be a bar
908 H
909 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 1 S.C.R.

A for new schools being permitted, particularly in view of the >- •
subsequent orders of the Aurangabad bench - When the
permission had been accorded and schools had started
functioning on that basis, the High Court ought not to have
quashed the permission granted to those 1495 schodls, without
B impleading the schools or without hearing them - It is the duty
of the State Government to provide access to education -
Unless new schools in the private sector are permitted it will
not be possible for the State to discharge its constitutional
obligation - Permission has been granted to 1495 new schools
c under the Order dated 16. 5. 2006 on permanent no-grant basis
without any financial commitment or liability on the part of the
State Government, even in future, and at the same time
ensuring that the schools follow the parameters and conditions
prescribed by the Education Code, reserving liberty to the
authorities to take appropriate action, should there be any
0
violation - The said order does not contravene any provision
of law - The Government Order dated 16.5.2006 permitting
new schools will, therefore, continue to be in force - However,
it is made clear, if any school is found to have flouted or not
fulfilled the parameters prescribed by the Education Code or
E the conditions stipulated by the State Government in the Order
dated 16. 5. 2006, the authorities concerned or the State
Government will be at liberty to take appropriate action against
the defaulting schools, including cancellation of the permission
- Objects of regulating permission for new private schools,
F enumerated - Impugned order set aside - Principles of natural
;ustice - Practice and Procedure - lmpleadment of necessary
parties.
*Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Manda! vs. The State of
G Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2000 Bombay 437 - referred to.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1105
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7. 7.2006 of the
H High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
SUPERSTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY v. STATE OF 910
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

W.P. No. 2897/2006. A
WITH
C.A. Nos.1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113,
1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123,
1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, B
1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143,
1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153,
1154, 1155, 1157, 1159, 1160, 1162, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167,
1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177,
1178 and 1179 of 2008. c
C.A. Sundram, Yashwant Das, Jaideep Gupta, Colin
Gonsalves, M.N. Rao, Yashovant Das, Sanjay Sen, Rana S.
Biswas, Shyam Dewan, Deepak Biswas, Mridul Chakravarty,
Ruchika Rathi, Sarla Chandra, Vipin M. Benjamin, Vikas
Padora, Jyoti Mendiratta, Hiren Dasan, Anupam Shah, D
Dhirendra :Kumar Mishra, Atul Y. Chitale, Suchitra A. Chitale,
Dhruv Macfan, Gagan Sanghi, Balmohan Vidhyamandir, M.Y.
Deshmukh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, S.M. Jadhav, Satyajit
A. Desai, Arnol N. Suryawanshi, Anagha S. Desai, Vijay Kumar,
Vishwajit Sfngh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan (Adv. E
for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Sanjay Kharde, Chandan
Ramamurthi, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Dilip Annasaheb
Taaaur, SaJ!tosh Kumar Tripathi, Sudha Gupta, Vinay Navare,
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Naresh Kumar, Uday 8. Dube, Kuldip
Singh, Bharat Sangal, S. Chatterjee, Anil K. Jha, D.M. Nargolkar, F
Anjani Kumar Jha, Sajan K. Singh, Sangeeta Singh, Balraj
Dewan, S.W.A. Qadri, Jubair Ahmad Khan, Udita Singh, L.R.
Singh, Amol Chitale, Manik Karanjawala, S.S. Shinde, Asha
Gopalan Nair, Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri and V.N.
Raghupathy for the appearing parties.
G
The Order of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. Leave granted. Heard
learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the
State of Maharashtra (Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3).
H
911 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A 2. In the State of Maharashtra , there are three categories
of schools - Marathi Medium Schools, English Medium Schools,
other non- Marathi Medium Schools. Some schools in all three
categories are established by religious or linguistic minority
groups. Establish ment of new Primary, Secondary and Higher
B Secondary Schools are governed by respective Education
Codes.

3. In the year 2000 a Public Interest Litigation was filed in
the Bombay High Court complaining that large number of schools ...
were being started in the State without following any norms. A
C Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the matter
in Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Manda/ v. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (AIR 2000 Bombay 437). By judgment
dated 11.4.2000, the High Court directed the State Government
to prepare a Master Plan, for granting permission to the Primary,
D Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools during 2000 - 2010
, by reviewing and updating the existing state policies and
· schemes and by incorporating the guidelines suggested by the
High Court, in its judgment. The decision clarified that the master
plan will be only for Marathi Medium Schools. As regards English
E Medium Schools and other non- Marathi Medium Schools, no
directions were issued. It was also stated that schools
established by religious or linguistic minorities will not be
governed by the proposed Master Plan.

4. Due to several reasons, there was delay in finalizing the
F master plan. On considering the reasons assigned by the State
Government, the Aurangabad Bench permitted sanctioning of
all types of schools including Marathi Medium of Schools for
2004 ~ 2005 and 2005 - 2006 on permanent unaided basis
even though the Master Plan was not ready.
G
5. In regard to the year 2005 - 2006, the State Government
considered more than 3000 applications and the proposals/
recom mend ations by the District Level Committees in regard
to such applications, and granted permission for 1495 new
Higher Secondary classes/ schools by order dated 16.5.2006
H
SUPERSTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY v. STATE OF 912
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

on 'no- grant basis'. Such permission was granted subject to A
•. i
the following conditions :
(i) No financial assistance would be provided to any of the
newly approved Higher Secondary classes even in future.
(ii) The Higher Secondary Schools should scrupulously B
follow the orders issued by the Government from time to
time, as also the provisions of Secondary School Code
and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Services) Act, 1977 and the 1981 Rules
framed thereunder. c
(iii) The School administr ations should not charge any
fee from students in excess of the fees approved by the
Government.
(iv) The school administrations should maintain adequate D
and sufficient financial position.
(v) The Schools should display prominently a Board stating
'Higher Secondary School with permission on permanent
no-grant basis' and also state in their letterheads 'School
on permanent no- grant basis'. E
(vi) The societies running the schools should furnish
affidavits confirming that they are ready to run the Higher
Secondary classes·on permanent no-grant basis and such.
affidavits shall be permanently maintained. ·
F
In pursuance of such permission, the Higher Secondary
classes were commenced and were being conducted.
6. When matters stood thus, the fourth respondent
(Maharashtra Rajya Shikshan Sansthan Mahamandal) filed
a Public Interest Litigation (W.P. No. 2897/2006) before the G
Nagpur Bench challenging the order dated 16.5.2006 on the
ground that grant of permission to 1495 schools violated the
direction issued by the High Court in Gramvikas Mandal (supra)
for preparation of a master plan. None of the 1495 schools which
were granted permission, were impleaded as parties to the writ H
913 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A petition. It was contended that the decision rendered in
t .•
Gramvikas Manda! required finalization of a Master Plan before
granting permission for starting new schools and in the absence
of a Master Plan, gran_t of permission to start new schools was
illegal. The High Court by its judgment dated 7.7.2006, allowed
B the said writ petition at the stage of admission itself, and quashed
the Government Order dated 16.5.2006, on the ground that grant
of permission for new schools by the State Government, without
preparing the Master Pl an and without fixing any yearwise quota
...
for new schools, was in breach of the procedure prescribed in
c the case of Gramvikas Manda/, and therefore, illegal. Aggrieved
by the order of the Division Bench, several institutions which
had been granted permission under the order dated 16.5.2006
have filed these appeals by special leave.

7. Though notice was issued to the respondents and
D served, the writ petitioner in the PIL (Maharashtra Rajya
Shikshan Sansthan Mahamandal) has not entered appeara
nee. Though the State and its authorities did not challenge the
order of the High Court, they supported the appellants and
contended before us that the order dated 16.5.2006 was validly
E made. It was submitted that the Secondary Education Code
governed the starting of Secondary and Higher Secondary
schools; and that permission was granted to 1495 schools by
order dated 16.5.2006, only after the District Level Committees
recommended grant of permission to those schools, after
F verifying that the applicants fulfilled the requirements of the
Education Code; that all permissions were on 'permanent no- •
grant basis' without any financial assista nee and appropriate
conditions were imposed to ensure that the schools were
properly run; that the decision in Gramvikas Manda/ (supra)
required the master plan to be prepared only for Marathi medium
G
schools and not for English medium or other Non- Marathi
Medium schools and schools run by religious and linguistic .. ...
minorities; that the High Court had set aside the order dated
16.5.2006 in regard to all 1495 schools, even though it related
to a large number of schools which were not required to be
H
SUPERSTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY v. STATE OF 914
MAHARASHTRA &ORS. [BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

covered by the master plan; and that the High Court had ignored A
_, i the fact that its Aurangabad Bench had permitted the State
Government to sanction schools on permanent unaided basis,
even without the master plan, for the years 2004 - 2005 and
2005 - 2006 . It was also contended that the High Court could
;
not have quashed the permission granted to the 1495 schools, B
without hearing them and without impleading them as parties to
the writ petition.

,. 8. The object of regulating permissions for new private
schools are: (i) to ensure that they have the requisite
infrastructure, (ii) to avoid unhealthy competition among· c
educationat institutions; (iii) to subject the private institutions
seeking entry in the field of education to such restrictions and
regulatory requirements, so as to maintain standards of
education; (iv) to promote and safeguard the interests of
students, teachers and education; and (v) to provide access to D
basic education to all sections of society, in particular the poorer
.... and weaker sections; and (vi) to avoid concentration of schools
only in certain areas and to ensure that they are evenly spread
so as to cater to the requirements of different areas and regions
,.'
f
and to all section of society. E
9. While the decision of the Bombay High Court in
Gramvikas Manda/ directed the formulation of a Master Plan '
by incorporating the suggestions made by the court, it does not
bar the grant of permission to schools, before the Master Plan
was finalized. At all events, the proposed Master Plan is not F
~....,.
intended to apply to English medium schools, non- Marathi
schools and schools run by religious and linguistic minorities.
We are also informed that the State Government has already
,e constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of Director of
~ Education (Secondary & Higher Secondary) Maharashtra on G
24.7.2006 for preparing a Master Plan.
'" • 10. A perusal of the order dated 16.5.2006 shows that the
permission has been granted only after the proposals/
applications were evaluated by the District Level Committees/
H

'1.
915 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A State Level Committee and necessary recommendations were
made by such committees. It is evident from the counter affidavit
filed by the State of Maharashtra that these Committees evaluate
the proposals for schools by taking note of all the relevant aspects
r
-
including : place (situation) of the proposed school - whether
B urban, rural, tribal, non- tribal etc., population at the place of
proposed school, number of primary/secondary schools within
a radius of 5 kms from the proposed school, and their distance
to the proposed school, the enrolment figures relating to 7th
and 8th standards within a 5 kms area, distance from the similar
·-
c existing schools within a 5 kms radius, the built- up area of school,
availability of facilities like sport ground, separate toilets for boys
and girls, infrastructure like furniture (benches and tables), library,
educational study material, financial position of the proposed
school etc. It is also seen that for 2004 - 2005 and 2005 - 2006
the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court permitted the State
D
Government to grant permission to schools on permanent
unaided basis. ...
11. It is the duty of the State Government to provide access ,.
for education. Unless new schools in the private sector are
E permitted it will not be possible for the State to discharge its
constitutional obligation. Permission has been granted to 1495
new schools under the order dated 16.5.2006 on permanent
no-grant basis without any financial commitment or liability on
the part of the State Government, even in future, and at the same
F time ensuring that the schools follow the para meters and
conditions prescribed by the Education Code, reserving liberty
to the authorities to take appropriate action, should there be
any violation. The said order does not contravene any provision
of law. It was not even the case of the writ petitioner that the
schools permitted did not fulfil the conditions and requirements •
G
relating to such schools.
12. The High Court has quashed the order dated
•
16.5.2006 without even noticing that many of the schools which
have been permitted under the said order, were English medium
H schools or non- Marathi schools or schools run by religious and
SUPERSTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY v. STATE OF 916
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

.,; ·~ linguistic minorities, which were not intended to be covered by A
the proposed Master Pl a n. It also failed to notice that any delay
in drafting or finalizing the Master Pl a n cannot be a bar for new
schools being permitted, particularly in view of the subsequent
orders of the Aurangabad Bench. When the permission had
been accorded and schools had started functioning on that B
basis, the High Court ought not to have quashed the permission
granted to those 1 4 9 5 schools, without impleading the Schools
or without hearing them. On the facts and circumsta nces, the
assu mption that the order dated 16.5.2006 violated the order
in Gramvikas Manda/ does not appear to be sound. Even if the c
High Court wanted implementation of the decision in Gramvikas
Manda/, it ought to have directed that the Master Pl a n should
be prepared within a time bound schedule rather than quashing
the permission granted to 1495 schools thereby denying access
to a large number of students aspiring for higher secondary
0
education.
13. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the
judgment of the High Court. The government order dated
16.5.2006 permitting new schools will, therefore, continue to
be in force. We however make it clear that if any school is found E
to have flouted or not fulfilled the para meters prescribed by the
Education Code or the conditions stipulated by the State
Government in the order dated 16.5.2006, the concerned
authorities of the State Government will be at liberty to take
appropriate action against the defaulting schools, including F
cancellation of the permission. Appeals are disposed of
accordingly. Parties to bear their respective costs.
R.P. Appeals disposed of.

G
..