Allowed

Vidya Vihar Sevabhavi Sanstha v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2012WP/3872/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed and set aside an order rejecting a petitioner's proposal for opening a new Arts college in Narshi village. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the proposal under the policy applicable in 2009-2010 and communicate reasons for rejection within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 04.06.2010; restored proposal for reconsideration under 2009-2010 policy; directions to communicate reasons within three months.

Vidya Vihar Sevabhavi Sanstha Vs the State of Mah… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P.3872.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3872 OF 2011

¶4

Vidya Vihar Sevabhavi
Sanstha, Parbhani, "Tarangan"
Bus Stand Campus,Parbhani
District Parbhani,
Through its President,
Navin S/o Keshavrao Gilbile,
Age 38 Years,
R/o Parbhani,District Parbhani...PETITIONER.

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -400 032.

¶7

2. The Director, Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building Pune-1

¶8

3. The Joint Director, Higher Education, Nanded Region Government Polytechnic Campus Nanded

¶9

...RESPONDENTS.

¶10

...

¶11

 Shri S.V.Chandole,Advocate holding for
 Shri V.G.Sakolkar,Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri K.S.Patil,AGP for Respondents

¶12

CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶13

 SUNIL P.DESHMUKH,JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 16.08.2012.

¶15

2 W.P.3872.11

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

. Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶18

2. This is a second round litigation. In Writ
Petition No. 2176 of 2010, present petitioner made
grievance that proposals submitted by it for
opening new College at village Narshi Tahsil and
District Hingoli was not decided. This Court on
17.03.2010, directed expeditious consideration of
that proposal. On 04.06.2010 the petitioner has
been informed that proposals accepted in the year
2009-2010 were already communicated to concerned
and remaining proposals were deemed to have been
rejected.

¶19

3. This rejection was to be communicated by the
concerned Universities to the applicants.

¶20

4. Mr. Chandole,learned counsel for petitioners,
in this background contends that the reasons given
in reply affidavit to support such rejection were

¶21

3 W.P.3872.11

¶22

not in existence at the time of alleged rejection.
Change in policy for the year 2011-2012 is totally
irrelevant. He submits that insofar as village
Narsi is concerned, situation has not undergone
any change.

¶23

5. Learned AGP relies upon reply affidavit to
argue that this Court should not interfere. He
further contends that after 2009-2010, period of
about three years has expired and even if
permission is to be granted now College cannot be
opened till next academic year 2013-2014. He,
therefore, contends that present challenge is
rendered infructuous.

¶24

6. Change in policy is not during the year in
which the petitioner has sought permission.
Impugned order dated 04.06.2010 itself shows that
during the year 2009-2010 some colleges were
granted permission and other colleges were
therefore deemed not to have been granted
permission.

¶25

4 W.P.3872.11

¶26

7. Reasons for not granting such permission have

¶27

not come on record. This Court, on 26.07.2011
while issuing notice has specifically asked
respondents to disclose the grounds on which the
petitioner's proposal for starting new Arts
College came to be rejected. Obviously, reference
is rejection for the year 20009-2010. This reason
has not been disclosed.

¶28

8. The law on this point is well settled, in
the light of the Judgment in the case of Digitek
Krida Vikas Sanshodhan Va Shikshan Bahuuddeshia

¶29

Sanstha Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another

¶30

reported in 2011(2) All M.R.219.

¶31

9. In that view of the matter, we quash and set
aside the order dated 04.06.2010 and restore the
proposal submitted by the petitioner back to file
for consideration. Respondents to consider the
position as prevailed in the year 2009-2010, if

¶32

there are no changes subsequently. If proposal is
already rejected, respondents to communicate the

¶33

5 W.P.3872.11

¶34

reasons therefor to the present petitioner. This
exercise be completed within a period of three
months from today.

¶35

10. With these directions and observations, we

¶36

allow the petition. Rule made absolute. No costs.

¶37

 Sd/- Sd/-

¶38

[SUNIL P.DESHMUKH,J.] [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J.]

¶39

MTK

Vidya Vihar Sevabhavi Sanstha v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidya Vihar Sevabhavi Sanstha v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Shriniwas Narayanrao Hatolkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tukaram Bapurao Bhavar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vishwambhar Gunvantrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harihar Shrirang Kulkarni Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Shrirang Martandrao Sandve Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Somnath Bapuji Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.