Disposed

Srinivas Dattatraya Mante v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Sept 2013WP/2818/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting student admissions because the enquiry report was not communicated to the students for a hearing. The committee was directed to issue notice, grant hearing, and reconstitute the decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed. Petitioners were directed to appear before the committee for notice, hearing, and record inspection. A fresh decision was ordered within two months. Interim protection

Srinivas Dattatraya Mante Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP/2820/2013+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2820 OF 2013 ANAM MOHD. MOOBIN SIDDIQUE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2818 OF 2013 SRINIVAS DATTATRAYA MANTE VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶9

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri V.D.Godbharale Advocate for Respondent 3 : Shri M.V.Deshpande Advocate for Respondent 4 : Shri K.M.Suryawanshi Advocate for Respondent 5 : Shri G.S.Rane

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: September 10, 2013

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶13

Learned Advocate Shri Kulkarni submits that both the petitioners have been admitted after due publicity in the news paper. He placed reliance upon communication dated 22.9.2012, sent by respondent No.5 College to respondent No.3, about the admissions given to the petitioners. According to him, the enquiry committee might have conducted some enquiry but in it the petitioners were not given any opportunity. It's report was never received by the petitioners and respondent No.3 committee while refusing to approve admissions of the petitioners did not find it necessary to extend an

¶14

WP/2820/2013+

¶15

¶16

opportunity of hearing to them. He, therefore, contends that the entire action is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Support is being taken from the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [AIR 1991 SC 471] and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727].

¶17

Learned Advocate Shri Rane for respondent No.5 college supports the contention of the petitioners.

¶18

Learned Advocate Shri Suryawanshi for respondent No.4 states that basically the dispute is in between respondent No.3 and respondent No.5 college.

¶19

Learned Advocate Shri Deshpande for respondent No.3 submits that the enquiry committee, which has conducted enquiry was an independent entity and it is not before this Court. The committee has conducted enquiry and found that the college was not in a position to show any advertisement prior to the admissions. In the alternative and without prejudice, he submits that the college was duty bound to first report the names of students to respondent No.3 committee and after necessary clearance of respondent No.3 and issuance of eligibility by respondent No.4 University, admissions could have been made. He contends that the students and college are hands in gloves and are attempting to defeat otherwise transparent admission process. He has invited our attention to the proceedings of respondent No.3 committee in this connection. He further states that a news paper

¶20

WP/2820/2013+

¶21

¶22

advertisement was lateron submitted but that publication appears to be clearly by way of after thought.

¶23

After hearing respective counsel, we find that this Court has permitted students to appear for the examination and accordingly they have appeared for first year examination. Their results have also been declared and now they are taking education in second year. The total duration of course is five years.

¶24

Though enquiry committee constituted was an independent entity, the committee was constituted only to assist respondent No.3 and report of that committee has been used by respondent No.3.

¶25

When the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar (supra) are perused, it is apparent that in such situation the authority taking decision cannot act upon such enquiry reports, unless and until such reports are brought to the notice of the persons against whom action is sought to be taken. Here, the proposed action is against the students and prima facie it appears that the students never appeared before the Committee and as they never appeared they are not aware of the report submitted by the committee. They have only learnt about the impugned order by which their admissions by respondent No.5 college were sought to be disturbed. Hence the entire action is in breach of the principles of natural justice.

¶26

WP/2820/2013+

¶27

¶28

Therefore, the impugned order, as per the decision in the meeting dated 11.1.2013 taken by respondent No.3 committee, is quashed and set aside. The committee is directed to supply the copy of enquiry report to present petitioners and to hear them. For the said purpose, we direct the petitioners to appear before respondent No.3 committee on 14.10.2013 and to abide by it's further instructions in the matter. The committee shall also permit the petitioners to inspect it's records and records of enquiry committee for the said purpose. Respondent no.3 shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to respondent No.5 college within further period of two months.

¶29

As the petitioners are already permitted to prosecute their studies further, we continue with the interim protection further. However, the same shall be subject to further verification and orders of respondent No.3 committee in the matter.

¶30

With these directions and keeping all other rival contentions open, we dispose of the present Writ Petition with no order as to costs.

¶31

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶32

akl

Srinivas Dattatraya Mante v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivas Dattatraya Mante 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Annasaheb Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Imamsaheb Ismail Saheb(Died)L.Rs.Mehtab and Ors. Vs Gaurishankar Mohanlal Vyas

Anand Krishna Mahakal and Others Vs Kishan Sayaji Shelke and Another

Tukaram Yogaji Shirsath and Anr. Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed and Ors.

M/S.Vegneshwara Construction, Sangli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anam Mohd. Moobin Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others