Allowed

Matoshri Typewriting Institute v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Apr 2013WP/1589/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed the order canceling recognition of a typewriting institute. The Court held that the withdrawing authority acted under dictation and failed to follow statutory procedure under Rule 6, 1991, despite a show-cause notice. A prohibitory order was issued to prevent new admissions until a final enquiry is completed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order cancelled; declaration that writ petitioner cannot admit new students till final enquiry is completed.

Matoshri Typewriting Institute Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

W.P.1589.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1589 OF 2013

¶6

Matoshri Typewriting Institute
( Code No. 53094 )
Khalapuri, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed.
Mahesh S/o Rajendra Wagh
Shrimant S/o Bhagwanrao Dorle
Age : 23 Yrs., Occ. : Service,
R/o : Khalapur, Tq. Shirur

¶7

 Dist. : Beed. .... PETITIONER

¶8

V E R S U S

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶10

2. The Commissioner Maharashtra State Council of Examination, Pune 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune - 1.

¶11

3. The Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

¶12

4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. .... RESPONDENTS

¶13

 Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner
 Mr. V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for the State.
 Mr. A.R.Nikam, Advocate for Resp. No. 2.

¶14

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶15

 DATE : 04.04.4013

¶16

W.P.1589.13

¶17

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶19

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the learned counsel for the respective
parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶20

2.The order canceling recognition of the

¶21

petitioner's typewriting institute is assailed in the
present Writ Petition.

¶22

3.Mr. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner submits that no copy of the report was
supplied to the petitioner. Even the Dy. Director of
Education, Aurangabad [ For short, 'Dy. Director'] has

¶24

issued the order on the basis of the directions
received from the Commissioner i.e. the respondent No.
2 and has not independently applied his mind. Even the
reply has not been considered. No hearing was given
nor opportunity was given to rectify the alleged
defects. According to the learned counsel, Rule 6 of

¶25

the Maharashtra Institute of Commerce Education
[Typing, Shorthand and Diploma courses] Recognition and
Conduct Rules, 1991 [ For short, 'said Rules' ] has not

¶26

W.P.1589.13

¶27

¶28

been followed.

¶29

4.Mr. Nikam, the learned counsel for the respondent
No. 2 and the learned A.G.P. support the order.

¶30

5.With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have
gone through the order.

¶31

6.It appears that earlier a show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2. The
reply was given by the petitioner and thereafter
respondent No. 3 cancelled the recognition of the
petitioner to run typewriting institute.

¶32

7.Rule 6 of the said Rules lay down a procedure to

¶33

be followed before the recognition is withdrawn. If
the recognition is to be withdrawn, then the institute
is required to be given full opportunity. If there are
some defects, the institute is required to be made
known about the defects and the show cause notice is
required to be issued. If the time is required to
rectify the defects and if the explanation is
satisfactory, then the Dy. Director can impose such

¶34

W.P.1589.13

¶35

¶36

condition for continuation of the said recognition.

¶37

8.In the present case, the show cause notice was
issued by the respondent No. 2. The reply was given to
the respondent No. 2. However, the order has been
passed by the respondent No. 3 withdrawing the
recognition and the only reason given in the order is
that the respondent No. 2 has issued letter directing
the respondent no. 3 to take action against the
petitioner/institute. The said order is bad on account
of principle of acting under dictation. Even the
procedure as contemplated under Rule 6 of the said
Rules is not followed.

¶38

9.In light of the above, the impugned order can not
be sustained and is quashed and set aside. If the
respondents chooses to take action against the
petitioner, then they should follow the procedure as
laid down under Rule 6 of the said Rules and this order
would not be an impediment for them to proceed in tune
with the said Rules.

¶39

5 W.P.1589.13

¶40

10. In normal course, I would have not clamped
prohibitory order against the petitioner, after
allowing the petition. However, considering the factual
dispute and the report submitted by respondent No. 2,
I hereby direct that the petitioner shall not admit any
new student till respondent No. 3 completes enquiry
and passes final order. The petitioner shall also not
run Institution till said period. The petitioner has
given list of 20 students, who according to them, are
admitted. The petitioner shall furnish and supply all
relevant documents pertaining to their admissions and
attendance to the respondents. Respondents, upon
verification of the said documents and if they are
satisfied about the fact that these 20 students were
admitted and have attended the course, shall allow them
to appear at examination.

¶41

11.Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶42

 Sd/-
[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶43

MTK

Matoshri Typewriting Institute v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matoshri Typewriting Institute v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Rama Sakharam Muke, Died Thr. L.Rs. Chandrabhaga and Anr. Vs Chaburao Dashrath Kale and Ors.

Bhimshankar Dattatraya Deshmane and Ors. Vs Dwarkadas Shrinivas Baheti Died and Ors.

Kachru Tukaram Alanjkar Vs Eknath Vishwanath Jadhav and Others

Dilip Lalchand Mankani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijaya Rameshwar Sonune Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammad Sharif Shaikh Jabbar and Others Vs Mohan Budhu Patil