Partly allowed

Kala Sagar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through President v. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University through Registrar and Others

Bombay HC24 Jul 2013WP/1158/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed regarding delay by University in submitting comments on Bar Council inspection report. Court directed University to submit comments within two weeks and imposed costs.

What did the court decide?

Directions to University to submit comments on inspection report within two weeks. Imposition of costs of Rs. 2,000 to High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee.

Kala Sagar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP1158.2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2013

¶5

Kala Sagar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through its President, Naik Nagar, Nanded-2 Vs.

¶6

Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, University Campus, through its Registrar, Amravati and others

¶7

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

¶8

______________________________________________________________________________ Shri. A. R. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri. V. A. Kathale, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Shri. T. R. Kankale, AGP for respondent No. 2 Shri. K. S. Narwade, Advocate for respondent No. 3

¶9

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : JULY 24, 2013.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Matter is being heard since long and on 10^th July, 2013, this Court also noted that Bar Council of India has, on 8^th May, 2012, forwarded

¶13

¶14

WP1158.2013

¶15

its inspection report to University and University was called upon to forward its comments and explanation upon it. The provisions of Rule 24(b) of the Legal Education Rules, 2008 envisage this course of action. After receipt of comments of University, the matter is to be placed before Legal Education Committee, Bar Council of India, for its further consideration. The petitioner-management, who wants to open law college, is before this Court with grievance that University has not taken any cognizance of this communication.

¶16

This Court issued notice in the matter on 5^th March, 2013 and on 9^th April, 2013, though respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were served, nobody appeared for them. On 7^th May, 2013, we also permitted the respondent No. 1 to look into the prayer made and also to consider the proposal as per law. In this background, on 10^th July, 2013, this Court directed Deputy Registrar (Legal) to file

¶17

¶18

WP1158.2013

¶19

appropriate affidavit in this respect and also to explain as to why heavy costs should not be imposed upon them for not taking cognizance of the notice issued by this Court. After this order, an affidavit has been filed by respondent-University on 22^nd July, 2013. However, no cause is shown therein as to why no cognizance of direction issued by this Court on 7^th May, 2013, was taken.

¶20

Shri. K. S. Narwade, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 – Bar Council of India, has pointed out communication dated 8^th May, 2012, sent to respondent No. 1, itself contains necessary legal provision and also intimates to it the relevance of its comments.

¶21

Today, Shri. V. A. Kathale, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 – University, has invited attention of this Court to various communications but could not point out why

¶22

¶23

WP1158.2013

¶24

respondent No. 1 – University has not communicated its comments upon the inspection report of Bar Council of India to respondent No. 3. After the arguments were over and Court started dictation, Shri. V. A. Kathale, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 – University, invited our attention to communication dated 16^th June, 2012. Said communication is sent by Deputy Registrar to petitioner. The communication informs petitioner that remarks of University are called for by Bar Council of India and hence petitioner is called upon to submit its comments. We have also noted that on 13^th September, 2012, the Registrar of respondent No. 1 – University has forwarded to Bard Council of India a copy of explanation / comments furnished by petitioner only.

¶25

It is, therefore, clear that respondent No. 1 has deliberately avoided to discharge its obligation. When its comments were called for, the

¶26

WP1158.2013

¶27

¶28

same needed to be furnished immediately. These comments are not furnished till date i.e. though period of fourteen months has expired.

¶29

In this situation, we direct the respondent to forward necessary comments on inspection report of Bar Council of India within a period of two weeks from today. If the comments are not forwarded, Court will hold that Shri. Mangesh Jayale, Deputy Registrar (Legal) of respondent No. 1 – University and other officer found involved responsible in the matter and proceed against them for not obeying these directions.

¶30

For non cooperation shown by respondent No. 1, we direct it to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as costs to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,

¶31

Nagpur, within a period of two weeks.

¶32

WP1158.2013

¶33

¶34

Petition is thus partly allowed with no

¶35

order as to costs.

¶36

JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

Punde

Kala Sagar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through President v. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University through Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kala Sagar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through President v. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University through Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Deorao S/O Badhuji Bhagat Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust through Chairman and Another

Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector, Washim

Rahul Rathod Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University Nagpur through Registrar and Another

Mamta D/O Ratiram Dharne Thr. Her Natural Guardian Father Shri Rm Dharne Vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certi. Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and Another

Pradipkumar S/O Popatlal Vakharia Vs Akola Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Municipal Commissioner, Akola and Another

Pradipkumar S/O Popatlal Vakharia Vs Akola Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Municipal Commissioner Akola and Another