In a writ petition, the court directed Respondent No.2 to decide pending representations made by petitioner students regarding fee matters. The court also directed the extension of deadlines for fee deposit till 31 December 2005.
Petition disposed of by directing Respondent No.2 to decide representations by 20 February 2006.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITIONNO.26 OF 2006
Rajendra Vasudeo Marathe and others ).. Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents
Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for the Petitioners.
Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate-General, with
Mr.P.I.Khemani, Assistant Government Pleader, for
Respondent No.1.
Mr.C.J. Sawant, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Nitin Dhumal
for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, AG. C.J. AND
SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.
DATED: 10TH JANUARY 2006
P.C.:
. By this Petition, the Petitioners have made the
following prayers :-
(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a
Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate Writ,
Order, Direction in the nature of
Mandamus or an appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction directing Respondent No.2 to
decide the representation/application
made by the Petitioners judicially within
such period as this Hon’ble High Court
may deem fit and proper and further be
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
restraining Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from
recovery of the difference of the fees
from the students.
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of
the above referred Petition, this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to grant stay to the
important notice dated 26.12.2005 issued
by Respondent No.4 and further be pleased
to restrain Respondent No.4 from taking
: 2 :
any coercive action against students for
recovery of arrears of fees.
(c) Ad interim relief in terms of prayer (b) be granted.(d) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be granted in the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners
that representations have already been made to the
Respondent No.2 by the Petitioners as also some other
similarly situated students. Those representations are
pending adjudication by the Respondent No.2. Direction
is, therefore, claimed directing the Respondent No.2 to
decide the representations within a stipulated period.
3. Mr.C.J. Sawant, Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.2, states that the periods mentioned in
the notice dated 26th September 2005 continues to be the
same and what has been extended by the notice dated 26th
December 2005 at page 37 is the period for depositing
the arrears payable till 31st December 2005. In view of
this statement, in our opinion, the Petition can be
conveniently disposed of by directing the Respondent
No.2 to decide the representations made by the
Petitioners and other similarly situated students latest
by 20th February 2006.
4. Petition accordingly disposed of.
: 3 :
5. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this
order.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Respondent to decide the pending representations of the petitioners within a stipulated period.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Vasudeo Marathe
State of Maharashtra
V.G. Palshikar
Nishita Mhatre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court