Dismissed

Shri Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Yaldari Camp v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2011WP/2111/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the rejection of permission to start a BSW course, the Court held that the Government's refusal was based on a uniform policy, not arbitrary discrimination. Distinguishing a prior case where reasons were lacking, the Court found no ground for interference under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; the petitioner remains at liberty to apply for permission if policy changes.

Shri Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Yaldari Camp… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2111 OF 2011 "Shri Gajanan S.P., Mandal Yeldari Camp Tq. Jintoor Dist. Parbhani through its President Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶5

¶6

Mr. B.A. Darak, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶7

Mr. R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.

¶9

DATE :- 23RD AUGUST, 2011.

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

1] The petitioner has impugned the communication dated 17th March, 2010, vide which the respondent State has rejected the application of the present petitioner, for grant of permission to start BSW course.

¶12

2] Shri Darak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the respondent State finds that the proposal of the petitioner was in accordance with law, it could not have rejected it, inasmuch as the case of the petitioner was recommended by the respondent University. He further relied on the judgment of this court in the matter of “Digitek Krida Vikas Sanshodhan va Shikahan Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Sindi Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶13

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 2111 OF 2011 "Shri Gajanan S.P., Mandal Yeldari Camp Tq. Jintoor Dist. Parbhani through its President Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶16

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶17

¶18

and another” reported in 2011(1)Mh.L.J. 793 and in the matter of “Social Society, Morba Vs. Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai & others” reported in 2011(4) Mh.L.J. 316.

¶19

3] Respondent No.1, while rejecting the application has stated that the Government, vide Govt. Resolution dated 24th August, 2004, has resolved not to give any permission to BSW, MSW and M.Phil courses, whether on grant or no-grant basis.

¶20

4] The question pertaining to grant of permission to open a particular course is purely a question of policy. The courts are required to be slow in interfering in the matter of policy. Unless the policy is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, being violative of Article 14 and irrational, it is not permissible for this court to sit in appeal over the policy of the Government. From the impugned communication it could be seen that the Government has adopted an uniform policy, in not giving permission to any BSW, MSW or M.Phil course. It is not as if the discriminatory treatment is being given to the petitioner alone.

¶21

5] In so far as the decision of the Division Bench in the

¶22

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO. 2111 OF 2011 "Shri Gajanan S.P., Mandal Yeldari Camp Tq. Jintoor Dist. Parbhani through its President Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶25

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶26

¶27

case of “Digitek Krida Vikas Sanstha, Sindi” (cited supra), is concerned, in the said case, no reasons were given and, therefore, the court found that such an action was not sustainable. It was a case wherein, the application seeking permission to start a new college was rejected without giving reasons. In the present case, reasons are given and it is stated that the Government has taken a policy decision not to grant permission to start BSW,MSW & M. Phil courses, either on grant or no grant basis.

¶28

6] In so far as the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the matter of “Social Society, Morba” (cited supra) is concerned, It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said judgment is carried in appeal before the Apex Court and Apex Court has granted stay. Since the Apex Court is seized of the matter, the said judgment would also not be of much avail to the petitioner.

¶29

7] In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to state that, in the event if there is any change in the policy of the petitioner in regard to grant of

¶30

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO. 2111 OF 2011 "Shri Gajanan S.P., Mandal Yeldari Camp Tq. Jintoor Dist. Parbhani through its President Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶33

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶34

permission to conduct BSW,MSW and M.Phil courses, the petitioner would always be at liberty to make an application aind dismissal of the present petition would not come in its way in making an application for grant of permission to conduct BSW, MSW, M.Phil Course.

¶35

grt/-

Shri Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Yaldari Camp v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Yaldari Camp v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrakant Sopan Mudewar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ganesh Vinayak Ajabe and Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Balasaheb Marutik Holambe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Royal Plastics Indutries through Proprietor Vs the Chief Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Districution Company Ltd. Aurangabad and Ors.

Shaikh Shaukat Ali Liyakat Ali Shaikh Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Ananda Shambhaji Kagane Vs the State of Mah and Anr.