Disposed

Rupali Ramesh Avhad and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Nov 2014WP/4011/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an institution's cancellation of admission notices and sought permission for students to appear for examinations. The court declared the students eligible to proceed, directed the tendering of results, and imposed a fine on the institution.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed allowing students to appear for examinations, results declared, eligible students admitted to next year, and institution fined Rs. 75,000.

Rupali Ramesh Avhad and Others Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp4011.14

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITON NO. 4011 OF 2014

¶5

RUPALI RAMESH AVHAD AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for the petitioners: Mr. A.D. Shinde AGP for respondent No.1: Mr. V.H. Dighe

¶8

Advocate for respondent No. 2: Mr. Chandrakant A. Jadhav Advocate for respondent No.3: Mr. Alok Sharma Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 : Mr. N.D. Sonwane

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 19^th NOVEMBER, 2014

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

The present writ petition is filed by students seeking permission to appear for the examination and complete their course from the institution possessing necessary suitability certificate and/or any other recognized institution. So also challenge the notice issued by the respondent No. 5 regarding cancellation of the admission of the petitioners of the Ist year G.N.M. Course.

¶13

We have heard Mr. A. D. Shinde, the learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Sonwane, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Mr. C.A. Jadhav, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. Alok Sharma learned counsel for

¶14

wp4011.14

¶15

-2-

¶16

respondent No.3 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶17

This Court vide order dated 09^th May, 2014 had allowed the petitioners to appear for the examination subject to the out come of the present writ petition. The petitioners thereafter appeared for the examination. It is contended that the the respondent No. 4/institution has been granted affiliation for the year 2014-2015. Then necessary suitability certificate is issued in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and affiliation is granted for the year 2014-2015. So also considering the fact that, the students were admitted in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were allowed to prosecute further studies. It was also considered that, the respondent/institution was granted provisional affiliation for the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. All these facts lead us to order declaration of the results in respect of petitioners and are directed to be given admission to the next year in case they are found to be eligible after declaration of results.

¶18

It is made clear that if the petitioners after declaration of result are found eligible they would be given admission in the next academic year as regular students.

¶19

For the irregularities committed by the respondent/institution,

¶20

wp4011.14

¶21

we mulct the respondent/institution with fine of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five thousand only). The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 graciously submits that, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would deposit the amount of Rs. 75,000/- with the Advocates Bar Association of High Court Bench at Aurangabad. The said statement is accepted. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall deposit the amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five thousand only) with the Advocates Bar Association of High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, within two weeks from today. The writ petition accordingly is disposed of.

¶22

rlj/

Rupali Ramesh Avhad and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupali Ramesh Avhad and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pralhad Balaji Khade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasant Marutirao Chavan Vs Jan Jagruti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Secretary and Ors.

Nutan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, Surwade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakhar Kamgar Union Thr. Its Sec. Lalmiya Gulabsha Shah Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Uttareshwar Baburao Mitkari and Another Vs Prabhakar Dagadu Mahanubhav and Another

Ishwar Anandrao Munde Vs Prabhakar Dagadu Mahanubhav and Another