{"id":215618,"date":"2009-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-06T07:40:04","modified_gmt":"2018-07-06T02:10:04","slug":"association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Association Of International … vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Association Of International … vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                                                     \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                    WRIT PETITION NO.1445 OF 2009\n\n\n    1.     Association of International Schools\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n           & Principals Foundation, an Association\n           of Private Unaided Schools and having \n                          \n           its address at Universal High, Brahmand\n           Scheme Phase VI, Off Ghodbunder Road,\n           Thane.\n                         \n    2.     Universal Education Foundation, a Company\n           incorporated under the provisions of Section\n           25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and address\n      \n\n           at Universal High, Brahmand\n           Scheme Phase VI, Off Ghodbunder Road,\n   \n\n\n\n           Thane.                                         .. Petitioners\n\n                       v\/s.\n\n\n\n\n\n    1.     State of Maharashtra,\n           Summon\/Notice\/s to be served on Learned\n           Government Pleader appearing for the \n           State of Maharashtra under Order XXVIII,\n           Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.\n\n\n\n\n\n    2.     The Department of Education,                  .. Respondents\n           State of Maharashtra, through the\n           Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.\n\n\n                               ALONGWITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::\n                                      2\n\n\n                   WRIT PETITION NO.1165 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n    1.     Association of Heads of Anglo Indian\n           Schools in Maharashtra, through its\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n           Honorary Secretary Mrs. M. Isaacs,\n           having its address at 6, Purshottamdas\n           Thakurdas Marg, Mumbai-400 001.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    2.     Anglo-Scottish Education Society,\n           which runs the Cathedral and John \n           Cannon School and is a company\n           incorporated under the provisions of\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n           Section 25 of the Companies Act, and\n           a Public Trust under the provisions of\n                         \n           the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 \n           having its address at Cathedral and John \n           Connon School, 6, Purshottamdas\n                        \n           Thakurdas Marg, Mumbai-400 001.\n\n    3.     Christ Church School, having its\n           address at Clare Road, Byculla,\n      \n\n           Mumbai-400 008.\n   \n\n\n\n    4.     Gehna Malkani, of Mumbai \n           Indian Inhabitant, Bursar of \n           Cathedral and John Cannon School,\n           having its address at \n\n\n\n\n\n           6, Purshottamdas\n           Thakurdas Marg, Mumbai-400 001.              .. Petitioners\n\n                 v\/s.\n\n\n\n\n\n    1.     The State of Maharashtra,\n           service through Government Pleader,\n           High Court, Bombay And through the\n           School Education and Sports Department,\n           Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.\n\n    2.     The Deputy Director, Education,\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::\n                                   3\n\n         an officer exercising powers under\n         the provisions of Maharashtra \n         Educational Institution,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n         (the Prohibition of Capitation Fee)\n         Act, 1987, having his office at \n         Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n         Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 004.            .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                            ALONGWITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1166 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n    1.\n                       \n         Unaided Schools Forum, a Society\n         registered under the Societies \n         Registration Act, 1860, which has \n                      \n         its registered office at Hiranandani\n         Foundation, 17, Saraswati Road,\n         Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400 054\n         and having an office for correspondence\n      \n\n         at Gujarat Research Society, \n         Dr. Madhuri Shah Campus, R.K.Mission\n   \n\n\n\n         Road, Khar (West), Mumbai-400 052.\n\n    2.   The Management\n         Jamnabai Narsee School\n\n\n\n\n\n         Narsee Monjee Bhavan\n         N.S.Road No.7,\n         JVP Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai-400049.\n\n    3.   The Management,\n\n\n\n\n\n         Arya Vidya Mandir,\n         St. Cyril Road,\n         Bandra (West),\n         Mumbai-400 050.\n         Through its Managing Trustee.\n\n    4.   The Management\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::\n                                       4\n\n           Hiranandani Foundation School,\n           Hiranandani Gardens,\n           Powai, Mumbai-400 076.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n    5.     Jagdish Chandulal Nanavati\n           of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n           residing at Arunodaya,\n           Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle (West),\n           Mumbai-400 056.                               .. Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                 v\/s.\n\n    1.     State of Maharashtra,\n           through the Department of Education,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n           which has its office at Mantralaya,\n           Annexe Bhavan, Mumbai-400 032.\n                          \n    2.     Secretary, Department of Education,\n           Government of Maharashtra, who has\n                         \n           his office at Mantralaya Extension,\n           Mumbai- 400 032                               .. Respondents\n      \n\n\n                               ALONGWITH\n   \n\n\n\n                    WRIT PETITION NO.2552 OF 2000\n\n\n\n\n\n    1.     Unaided Schools Forum, a Society\n           registered under the Societies \n           Registration Act, 1860, which has \n           its registered office at Hiranandani\n\n\n\n\n\n           Foundation, 17, Saraswati Road,\n           Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400 054\n           and having an office for correspondence\n           at Gujarat Research Society, \n           Dr. Madhuri Shah Campus, R.K.Mission\n           Road, Khar (West), Mumbai-400 052.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::\n                                       5\n\n    2.     Shree Chandulal Nanavati Womens\n           Institute and Girls High School, a \n           Society registered unde the \n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n           Societies Registration Act, 1860, which \n           has its registered office at Vallabh Bhai\n           Road, Vile Parle (West), \n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n           Mumbai- 400 056.\n\n    3.     Shardarshan Vidyamandir Trust,\n           a Public Charitable Trust,\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n           registered under the Bombay Public Trust \n           Pvt.1950 having its registered office\n           at Dr. Bhavanishankar Dadarkar Marg,\n           Dadar, Mumbai- 400 028.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    4.     Jagdish Chandulal Nanavati\n           of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,\n                          \n           residing at Arunodaya, Lajpatrai Road,\n           Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056.        .. Petitioners\n                         \n                 v\/s.\n\n    1.     State of Maharashtra,\n           through the Department of Education,\n      \n\n           which has its office at Mantralaya,\n           Annexe Bhavan, Mumbai-400 032.\n   \n\n\n\n    2.     J.M. Abhyankar, Deputy Secretary, \n           Department of Education,\n           Government of Maharashtra, who has\n\n\n\n\n\n           his office at Mantralaya Extension,\n           Mumbai- 400 032.                                .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                             ALONGWITH\n                           APPELLATE SIDE \n                    WRIT PETITION NO.4503 OF 2009\n\n\n\n    1.     Students Welfare Assocaition (Kharghar)\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::\n                                     6\n\n          (Proposed), Kharghar, Taluka-Panvel,\n          District-Raigad, C\/o. Score Plus Academy,\n          13, Vakratund Tower, Sector -4,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n          Kharghar 410210.\n\n    2.    Prof. M.S. Deshmukh\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n          Adult, Occ. Professor,\n          Residing at -Nikunj, CHS Flat No.C\/3\n          Plot No.14, Sector 4, Kharghar,\n          Navi Mumbai.                                .. Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                v\/s.\n\n    1.    State of Maharashtra,\n          (Summons to be served on the \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n          Learned Government Pleader\n          appearing for State of Maharashtra\n                        \n          under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the \n          Code of Civil Procedure, 1908).\n                       \n    2.    The Secretary, \n          School Education Department,\n          Government of Maharashtra, \n          Mantralaya,\n      \n\n          Mumbai- 400 032.                            .. Respondents\n          (Summons to be served on the \n   \n\n\n\n          Learned Government Pleader\n          appearing for State of Maharashtra\n          under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the \n          Code of Civil Procedure, 1908).\n\n\n\n\n\n    3.    Balbharti Public School\n          Plot No.5, Sector 4,\n          Kharghar, Nave Mumbai,\n          Mumbai -410210.                             .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                           ALONGWITH\n                         APPELLATE SIDE \n                  WRIT PETITION NO.4413 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::\n                                       7\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n    1.    Shri Sandeep R. Nair,\n          Age 41 years, Occupation Service,\n          Residing at Park Street, Row House\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n          C1, Chest Hospital Road, Wakad,\n          Pune-411 057.\n\n    2.    Shri Manoj G.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n          Age 41 years, Occupation-service,\n          Residing At A3\/A5, Royal Orchard,\n          Wireless Colony, Aundh,\n          Pune -411 007.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    3.    Shri Sanjay R. Jambhale,\n                        \n          Age 39 Years, Occupation-Service,\n          Residing at Park Street, Row\n          House J-13, Chest Hospital Road,\n                       \n          Wakad, Pune-411 057.                        .. Petitioners\n\n                v\/s.\n      \n\n    1.    The State of Maharashtra,\n   \n\n\n\n    2.    The Director of Education,\n          Maharashtra State Central Building,\n          Pune-411 001.\n\n\n\n\n\n    3.    Central Board of Secondary Education,\n          New No.3 (Old No.1630-A), J-Block,\n          16, Main Road, Anna Nagar (West),\n          Chennai-600040.\n          (Notice to be served upon Regional\n\n\n\n\n\n          Officer).\n\n    4.    Pradnya Niketan Education Society,\n          S.No.80\/1\/2\/1, Baner-Mhalunge Road,\n          Baner, Pune -411 045.\n          (Notice to be served upon Shri\n          B.K. Shinde-Trustee).\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::\n                                     8\n\n\n    5.    Mrs. Lakshmi Kumar,\n          Director the Orchid School,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n          Survey No.80\/1\/2\/1, Baner \n          Mhalunge Road, Baner,\n          Pune-411045.                                .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                                                 \n    Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioners in \n    A.S.W.P. No.4503 of 2009.\n    Mr. A.Y. Bookwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Munaf Virjee and Mr. \n    Mayuresh Borkar i\/by M\/s. DSK Legal for the respondent No.3.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Government Pleader for the State.\n    Mr. A.M. Joshi for the petitioner in A.S. Writ Petition No.4413 of \n                        \n    2009.\n    Mr. Hitesh Jain with Ms. Prachiti Darad i\/by M\/s.ALMT Legal for \n    the respondent Nos.4 and 5.\n                       \n    Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prateek Sakseria i\/by \n    M\/s.  L.J. Law for the applicant in C.A. No.1526 of 2009.\n    Mr. Prateek Sakseria i\/by M\/s. L.J. Law for the applicant in C.A. \n    No.1527 of 2009.\n      \n\n    Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prateek Sakseria \n    i\/by M\/s. Nankani & Associates for the petitioners in W.P.(L) No.\n   \n\n\n\n    1185 of 2009 and for applicant in C.A.No.1525 of 2009.\n    Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader with Ms. I. Calcuttawala, \n    A.G.P. for the State.\n    Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prateek Sakseria i\/by \n\n\n\n\n\n    M\/s. L.J.Law for the applicant in N.M. No.342 of 2009.\n    Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate  with Mr. Prateek Sakseria \n    i\/by M\/s. L.J. Law for the applicant in N.M. No.342 of 2009.\n    Mr. F.E. D'Vitre, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Joshi i\/by M\/s. \n    Federal & Rashmikant for the petitioners in W.P. No.1166 of 2009.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr. Prakash Naik for the applicants in Cri. applications.\n    Ms Sunita Sharma i\/by Mr. S.V. Marwadi for the respondent No.1.\n\n                           CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR , C.J. &\n                                            A.M. KHANWILKAR\n                                                            , J.\n                                                               \n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::\n                                              9\n\n\n\n    DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT :  30TH NOVEMBER, 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n    DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 10TH DECEMBER, 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    JUDGMENT (PER SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)\n<\/pre>\n
           Petitioners,   an   Association   of   private   unaided <\/p>\n
    schools\/Managements including private unaided minority schools, have <\/p>\n
    challenged the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated <\/p>\n
    8th May, 2009. According to the Government, it had received various <\/p>\n
    representations   stating   that   private   Primary,   Secondary   and   Higher <\/p>\n
    Secondary schools run on permanent unaided basis were increasing the <\/p>\n
    fees and other charges to a large extent and it would result in economic <\/p>\n
    exploitation   of   the   parents.     Requests   were   made   by   the <\/p>\n
    students\/parents to regulate the fee charged by these schools, at the <\/p>\n
    Government level.  The Government, thus, passed the resolution to the <\/p>\n
    following effect:\n<\/p>\n
                   “In   the   State   the   Primary,   Secondary   &   Higher
\n           Secondary   Schools   run   on   the   principle   of   private
\n           unaided\/permanent unaided, also schools affilidated to
\n           ICSE\/CBSE\/IGCE\/IB   Board   and   the   No   Objection <\/p>\n
           Certificate issued by Government to these schools shall
\n           not increase the fees of any kind without the permission
\n           of   the   Fee   Control   Committee   established   through
\n           Government.  For fixing the tuition fees and other fees
\n           Fee   Control   Committee   will   be   established   by
\n           Government   and   without   the   approval   by   said
\n           Committee   the   concerned  Institutions  cannot  increase
\n           the tuition fees & other fees. Prior to the notification of <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
            this   Resolution,   the   institutions   which   have   increased
\n            the fees for the academic year 2009-2010, shall also be
\n            binding on them to obtain the approval of the aforesaid <\/p>\n
            Committee   and   the   fees   decided   by   the   Fee   Control
\n            Committee, should only be charged by the schools.   If
\n            any   school   increases   Education   fees   for   the   academic <\/p>\n
            year   2009-2010   in   violation   of   this   Government
\n            Resolution,   the   permission   granted   to   the   concerned
\n            school   will   be   revoked   and   No   Objection   Certificate
\n            granted to those school shall be cancelled and the same <\/p>\n
            will be informed to concerned Board.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Said Resolution is availoable on Government of
\n            Maharashtra website  www.maharashtra.gov.in   and the
\n            code no. is 20090508190215001.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2.<\/p>\n
            According   to   the   petitioners,  Wards  of   Balbharti  Public   School <\/p>\n
    had   earlier   filed   writ   petition   being   Writ   Petition   No.4503   of   2009 <\/p>\n
    praying for issuance of mandamus to the State directing it to regulate <\/p>\n
    the fees charged by the said school.  During the course of hearing of the <\/p>\n
    said writ petition on 6.5.2009, the Additional Government Pleader, after <\/p>\n
    seeking   instructions,   made   a   statement   that   Government   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra   would   issue   instructions   to   the   institutions,   that   is   the <\/p>\n
    schools,  not  to   implement   their   decision   to   increase   the   fees  till   the <\/p>\n
    Committee   is   constituted   and   the   matter   is   examined   by   the   said <\/p>\n
    Committee.  With reference to the statement made before the Court, the <\/p>\n
    Court passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
                     “The   learned   A.G.P.  after   seeking   instructions
\n               from   Mr.   Sanjaykumar,   Secretary,   Education
\n               Department,   Government   of   Maharashtra   who   is
\n               present   in   the   Court   states   that   the   Education
\n               Department   would   issue   instructions   to   the
\n               respondents-institution   not   to   implement   their <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
             decision   to   increase   the   fees   till   the   committee   is
\n             constituted   and   the   matter   is   examined   by   the
\n             committee   and   further   states   that   the   procedure <\/p>\n
             involved   in   constituting   the   committee   requires
\n             consultation from various departments like Finance,
\n             Law & Judiciary and that has to be approved by the <\/p>\n
             Cabinet and, therefore, minimum 8 weeks time will
\n             be required for constituting the committee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2.      In   our   view,   as   the   Secretary,   Education <\/p>\n
             Department has made statement that instructions will
\n             be issued to all Educational Institutions in the State
\n             of Maharashtra not to give effect to the increase in
\n             fees till the statutory committee considers the case of
\n             increase in fees on case to case basis the interest of <\/p>\n
             students   and   their   guardians\/parents   is   well
\n             protect5ed.     We   therefore,   direct   the   Education <\/p>\n
             Department   of   State   of   Maharashtra   to   take
\n             appropriate steps to protect the interest of students
\n             and their guardians\/parents seeking admission at all
\n             levels   of   education   i.e.   from   Nursery   to   Junior <\/p>\n
             College by prohibiting them from increasing fees as
\n             no   committee   is   constituted   by   the   State   and
\n             presently   the   matter   is   left   to   mediation   between
\n             Parents & Teachers Association and Institutions which <\/p>\n
             are running the schools and colleges at various level.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3.      The matter be listed on 30th June, 2009.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3.     In   furtherance   to   these   directions,   the   Government   issued   a <\/p>\n
    circular dated 8.5.2009.  The above resolution has been challenged by <\/p>\n
    the petitioners on the ground that the respondents have no jurisdiction <\/p>\n
    to regulate and control the fees structure of the petitioner’s schools by <\/p>\n
    relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A.\n<\/p>\n
    Pai (2002)8 SCC 481.   It is argued that the action of the respondents <\/p>\n
    tantamounts   to   interference   in   the     management   and   practically <\/p>\n
    running the unaided private schools over which the authorities cannot <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
    exercise   any   such   control.     In   any   case,   fee   fixation   falls   under   the <\/p>\n
    domain of the management of these schools which have so fixed the <\/p>\n
    fees   for   the   purposes   of   maintaining   excellence   in   education.     The <\/p>\n
    matter  was being  examined  by one authority of  the  State. Thus, the <\/p>\n
    present   Government   Resolution   is   illegal,   unjustified   and   is   arbitrary <\/p>\n
    exercise of power. In terms of the order of this court and section 4 of <\/p>\n
    the   Maharashtra   Educational   Institutions   (Prevention   of   Capitation <\/p>\n
    Fees) Act,1987 and rules framed thereunder, a statutory committee was <\/p>\n
    to   be   constituted   and   the   Government   has   failed   to   discharge   its <\/p>\n
    obligations   on   the   one   hand   while   on   the   other   hand   without   any <\/p>\n
    rationale basis and data have issued the circular to prohibit increase in <\/p>\n
    fees.   The   obligation   of   the   schools,   with   an   intent   to   maintain <\/p>\n
    excellence, they have to pay higher salary to the teachers and also now <\/p>\n
    in terms of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission.  These <\/p>\n
    are some of the pleas raised by the petitioners.  In addition to the above <\/p>\n
    pleas,   interalia,   it   is   also   contended   that     the   provisions   of   this   Act <\/p>\n
    particularly, section 4 is violative of Article 19(1)(g).  Once the schools <\/p>\n
    are not indulging in profiteering   or imposing capitation fee, there is <\/p>\n
    nothing to prohibit them from charging fees as there are no guidelines, <\/p>\n
    no methodology provided for regulating the fees even if it is assumed <\/p>\n
    that they have such a right.  Furthermore, there is no absolute right to <\/p>\n
    regulate the fees.   On the other hand, according to the respondents, the <\/p>\n
    Act in question  was legislated in the year 1987 and various approvals <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
    have been given or refused under the provisions of the Act. It is not a <\/p>\n
    redundant law as alleged.   In terms of the judgment of the court and <\/p>\n
    even otherwise, the State has a right to control and regulate the fees.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, these petitions are premature and, in fact, according to the <\/p>\n
    respondents not even maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
    4.     In   view   of   the   approach   that   we   propose   to   adopt   while <\/p>\n
    dealing with the present case and the fact that the parties are ad <\/p>\n
    idem as regards issuance of some directions, it is not necessary for <\/p>\n
    this   Court   to   deal   with   the   respective   rival   contentions   raised <\/p>\n
    before us on merits of the case.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     In Writ Petition No.4503 of 2009, a Division Bench of this <\/p>\n
    Court,  while hearing the Writ Petition, had passed the order dated <\/p>\n
    6th May, 2009, as reproduced hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     In   furtherance   to   the   order   of   this   Court   and   the   policy <\/p>\n
    decision   of   the   Government,   the   Government   had   appointed   a <\/p>\n
    Committee   to   examine   various   aspects   of   fee   structure   of   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner’s   Schools,   Junior   Colleges   as   well   as   the   extent   of <\/p>\n
    control, etc.  that the Government is expected to exercise in terms <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
    of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai’s case (supra) <\/p>\n
    and in the case of P.A. Inamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra  <\/p>\n
    &   Ors.,<\/a>  (2005)6   SCC   537.     The   said   Committee   under   the <\/p>\n
    Chairmanship of Dr. Smt. Kumud Bansal, Retired IAS has on 16th <\/p>\n
    October, 2009 submitted its  Report to the  Competent Authority <\/p>\n
    which,   in   turn,   has   to   place   the   said   report   for   acceptance   or <\/p>\n
    otherwise before the State Government.   In the event, the State <\/p>\n
    Government   accepts   the   Report   of   Bansal   Committee,   nothing <\/p>\n
    really would survive in these Writ Petitions and it would be purely <\/p>\n
    academic for the Court to decide the said Writ Petitions on merits.\n<\/p>\n
    One   of   the   main   contentions   raised   by   the   Petitioners   is   with <\/p>\n
    regard to the control exercisable by the Government with regard <\/p>\n
    to the Fee Structure and other management matters of private un-\n<\/p>\n
    aided schools.   The Bansal Committee in its Report in Paragraphs <\/p>\n
    14, 19, 22, 36 and 37 has noticed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “14.       In respect of fees the TMA Pai judgment
\n                              unequivocally   states   that   the   private <\/p>\n
                              school   managements   of   unaided
\n                              institutions   have   the   right   to   decide
\n                              their   fes.     It   has   ruled   that   maximum
\n                              autonomy   has   to   be   with   the
\n                              management   of   the   unaided   schools
\n                              with   regard   to   administration,
\n                              admission of students and the fees to be <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
            charged.  It states :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            a.      The   right   to   establish   and <\/p>\n
                    administer broadly comprises the
\n                    following rights:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (a)     to admit students;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (b)     to   set   up   a   reasonable   fee
\n                            structure;…\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            b.      One cannot lose sight of the fact
\n                    that providing good amenities to
\n                    the   students   in   the   form <\/p>\n
                    competent   teaching   faculty   and
\n             ig     other infrastructure costs money.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    It has, therefore, to be left to the
\n                    institutin, if it chooses not to seek
\n                    any aid from the Government, to <\/p>\n
                    determine the scale of fee that it
\n                    can charge from the students.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The Committee, therefore, recommends <\/p>\n
            that   private   unaided   schools   should
\n            have   the   autonomy   to   fix   the   school <\/p>\n
            fees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            Xxx           xxx\n             xxx\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      19.   With regard to revenue, the Committee
\n            recommends   the   unaided   private
\n            schools continue to have the autonomy
\n            to   determine   the   fees   to   be   charged <\/p>\n
            taking   in   to   consideration   the   need   to
\n            generate   funds   to   run   the   institution
\n            and   to   provide   facilities   necessary   for
\n            the   students.     However,   schools   are
\n            prescribed from charging capitation fee
\n            and should not be allowed to profiteer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
                22.      There   cannot   be   uniform   and   rigid
\n                         norms   for   deciding   admissible
\n                         expenditure as institutions are affiliated <\/p>\n
                         to   different   Boards   and   the   norms
\n                         prescribed by every Board are different.
\n                         Also   each   institution   may   have   a <\/p>\n
                         different   vision   of   what   constitutes
\n                         quality education for its students.  Cost
\n                         of infrastructure and facilities vary from
\n                         place to palce (urban and rural).   The <\/p>\n
                         expenses   incurred   also   vary   according
\n                         to   the   stage   of   schooling   (Primary,
\n                         Secondary & Higher Secondary ), staff
\n                         required   for   implementation   of <\/p>\n
                         curriculum and salary of such staff. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                         \n                           xxx\n                                        Xxx             xxx\n                        \n<\/pre>\n
                36.      The   Committee   recommends   that   the
\n                         Government   should   address   this   issue
\n                         by   clearing   the   backlog   at   the   earliest
\n                         and   by   making   adequate   budgetary <\/p>\n
                         provisions   to   ensure   timely   release   of
\n                         grant in future, so that the bulk of the <\/p>\n
                         students   studying   in   the   aided   school
\n                         receive quality education.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                37.      This   Committee   also   recommends   that <\/p>\n
                         Government   may   take   a   conscious
\n                         policy decision and allow private aided
\n                         schools to raise additional resources as
\n                         per norms through the combined efforts
\n                         of PTA and Schools management.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.    From   a   bare   reading   of   the   recommendations   of   the <\/p>\n
    Committee, it is clear that both, the Fee Structure as well as the <\/p>\n
    extent of control to be exercised by the Government over these <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                             17<\/span><\/p>\n
    Schools, Junior Colleges, have been dealt with and commented <\/p>\n
    upon in a great detail.   That is the substantive ground on which <\/p>\n
    the   Petitioners   have   challenged   the   validity   and   legality   of   the <\/p>\n
    Government Resolution dated 8th May, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    8.     This   Court   had   also   passed   certain   order   dated   8th  July, <\/p>\n
    2009 which we are informed has not been challenged by any of <\/p>\n
    the   parties   to   these   Writ   Petitions.       Thus,   it   will   cause   no <\/p>\n
    prejudice   to   any   of   the   parties   if   the   said   order   is   continued <\/p>\n
    further subject to directions contained in this order.\n<\/p>\n
    9.     In light of the above discussion, we hereby dispose of above <\/p>\n
    Writ Petitions with the following directions:-\n<\/p>\n
                   (a)      Government   Resolution   dated   8th  May, <\/p>\n
                            2009 shall be kept in abeyance and will <\/p>\n
                            not   be   enforced   by   the   Respondents <\/p>\n
                            subject   to   the   adherence   of   the <\/p>\n
                            directions contained hereinafter;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (b)      Report   of   Bansal   Committee   shall   be <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                            18<\/span><\/p>\n
            placed   by   the   Competent   Authority <\/p>\n
            before   the   State   Government   within   a <\/p>\n
            period   of   two   weeks   from   the   date   of <\/p>\n
            pronouncement of this judgment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (c)   The State Government shall take a final <\/p>\n
            decision   upon   the   report   of   Bansal <\/p>\n
            Committee within a period of four weeks <\/p>\n
            thereafter   and   take   a   decision   after <\/p>\n
            granting   post   decisional   hearing   to   the <\/p>\n
            Petitioners   and   other   interested   parties <\/p>\n
            in a representative capacity;\n<\/p>\n
      (d)   Parties i.e. The Petitioners or any other <\/p>\n
            interested   parties   would   be   entitled   to <\/p>\n
            file   their   objections   or   submissions   in <\/p>\n
            respect   of   the   recommendations   of <\/p>\n
            Bansal Committee within a period of two <\/p>\n
            weeks with effect from today;\n<\/p>\n
      (e)   Any   decision   on   the   Bansal   Committee <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
            Report   taken   by   the   State   Government <\/p>\n
            shall   not   be   implemented   and   would <\/p>\n
            remain stayed for a period of two weeks <\/p>\n
            therefrom;\n<\/p>\n
      (f)   Interim order passed by this Court on 8th <\/p>\n
            July,   2009   vide   which   we   had   directed <\/p>\n
            the State and the State had stated before <\/p>\n
            us   that   it   would   not   give   effect   to   the <\/p>\n
            part of the said Government Resolution <\/p>\n
            which prohibits enhancement of Fee and <\/p>\n
            charging  of  increased fee  by schools  to <\/p>\n
            whom Government Resolution applies or <\/p>\n
            even   otherwise,   till   further   decision   in <\/p>\n
            these     matters.     We   had   also   clarified <\/p>\n
            that the increased fees are to be paid by <\/p>\n
            the students and if the contentions of the <\/p>\n
            Petitioners   are   ultimately   not   accepted, <\/p>\n
            then in that event the students would be <\/p>\n
            entitled to adjustment and\/or refund of <\/p>\n
            the fee in excess of the fees determined <\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                            20<\/span><\/p>\n
            by the Competent Authority.   Thus, the <\/p>\n
            order dated 8th July, 2009 shall continue <\/p>\n
            for a period of eight weeks from today <\/p>\n
            and   subject   to   such   orders,   as   may   be <\/p>\n
            passed   by   the   Competent   Court   or <\/p>\n
            appropriate   forum   in   accordance   with <\/p>\n
            law;\n<\/p>\n
      (g)<\/p>\n
            Upon such acceptance of the said report <\/p>\n
            or with such modifications as is directed <\/p>\n
            by   the   State   Government,   the   Fee <\/p>\n
            Structure Committee shall determine the <\/p>\n
            Fee chargeable by the Schools, if it has <\/p>\n
            jurisdiction to that effect, within a period <\/p>\n
            of   four   weeks   thereafter.   After   eight <\/p>\n
            weeks as aforesaid, no interim order will <\/p>\n
            be   in   operation.       However,   subject   to <\/p>\n
            such orders as may be passed again by <\/p>\n
            the   (Competent   Court,   appropriate <\/p>\n
            forum or court;) <\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                             21<\/span><\/p>\n
      (h)   We have fixed the above time schedule <\/p>\n
            primarily   with   the   object   that   these <\/p>\n
            questions   keep   arising   every   year   and <\/p>\n
            large number of Writ Petitions are being <\/p>\n
            filed in  that behalf.   Thus, it would be <\/p>\n
            appropriate   that   the   Government   and <\/p>\n
            the   Competent   Authority\/Committee <\/p>\n
            take   decision   well   in   advance   so   that <\/p>\n
            prior   to   commencement   of   academic <\/p>\n
            session,  all schools concerned as well as <\/p>\n
            the   students,   their   parents   and   Parents <\/p>\n
            Teachers’   Association   know   what   fees <\/p>\n
            they   have   to   pay   if   the   students     take <\/p>\n
            admissions in a given school.  We expect <\/p>\n
            that the Government and all concerned <\/p>\n
            Authorities   shall   adhere   to   the   time <\/p>\n
            schedule specified in this order.  In fact, <\/p>\n
            we   have   already   noticed   that   these <\/p>\n
            directions   and   time   schedule   were <\/p>\n
            acceptable   to   all   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
            appearing for the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                    22<\/span><\/p>\n
    10.   Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of with no order as <\/p>\n
    to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                           CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                        A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:54 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Association Of International … vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009 Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1445 OF 2009 1. Association of International Schools & Principals Foundation, an Association of Private Unaided Schools and having its address at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAssociation Of International ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Association Of International ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-06T02:10:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Association Of International … vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-06T02:10:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2480,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Association Of International ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-06T02:10:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Association Of International … vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Association Of International ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Association Of International ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-06T02:10:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Association Of International … vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-06T02:10:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009"},"wordCount":2480,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009","name":"Association Of International ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-06T02:10:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/association-of-international-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Association Of International … vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215618","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215618"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215618\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}