Allowed

Rachana Sansad'S Academy of Architecture and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Mar 2014WP/760/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order by the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti imposing penalties for late admission proposal submissions. The court held the order was without jurisdiction as it deviated from the Samiti's own resolutions and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order of PNS set aside; disposed of in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

Rachana Sansad'S Academy of Architecture and Anr. Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp760-13

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.760 OF 2013

¶6

Rachana Sansad's Academy of Architecture & Anr.

¶7

..Petitioners.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr.S.C. Naidu for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. J.G. Reddy, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶13

Mr. S.P. Khedekar for respondent No.3.

¶14

Mr. Rui Rodriques for respondent No.4.

¶15

CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶16

DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2014

¶17

P.C. :-

¶18

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order passed by the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (PNS) dated 30^th November, 2012. By the said order, the decision was taken by the PNS to approve admission of

¶19

1/5

¶20

wp760-13

¶21

students who are admitted to the petitioners' college on the following conditions :-

¶22

i) Penalty of 50% of the fees collected for late submission of proposal for admissions (academic year 2010-11 and 2011-12).

¶23

ii) Penalty of Rs.10,000/- for late submission of proposal for approving admissions (academic year 2009-10).

¶24

iii) If the College / Institute fail to deposit the penalty as in (i) & (ii) above, Samiti would not approve the admissions.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that PNS does not have the power or jurisdiction to impose penalty of 50% fees collected by the petitioners or penalty of Rs.10,000/- for late submission of proposal for approving admissions. He has challenged the decision of PNS on three grounds. He submitted that firstly, PNS does not have jurisdiction or authority to pass the impugned order. Secondly, if adverse order is to be passed which has adverse civil consequences, the Samiti ought to have given hearing to the petitioners. Thirdly, it is submitted that quantum of penalty levied by PNS is beyond the prescribed penalty by PNS as decided by them in the meeting dated 16^th July, 2012.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3,

¶27

2/5

¶28

wp760-13

¶29

on the other hand, invited our attention to the order passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.20001/2009 which was decided on 31^st August, 2009 in the petitioners' case. It was submitted that by the said order, the Apex Court had observed that for the academic year 2009-10, the college can admit students subject to approval / affiliation granted by the respective Universities and subject to the colleges fulfilling any other condition imposed therein. He has invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Memorial Education Society V/s. Nagpur University & Ors. reported in 1997(2) Mh.L.J. 276 and invited our attention to para 6 of the said judgment in which procedure for affiliation laid down under Section 83 was introduced. Sub-clause (5) specifically states that the procedure referred to in Section 82(1) to (6) shall apply, for the permission to open new course, additional faculties, new subjects and additional divisions. It is, therefore, submitted that taking into consideration the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, PNS had imposed such penalty on the petitioners' college.

¶30

In our view, there is much substance in the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In the meeting of the PNS, which was held on 16^th July, 2012, the procedure for

¶31

3/5

¶32

wp760-13

¶33

granting approval to admissions was laid down which reads as under:-

¶34

D) Schedule for submissions of proposal for approval of admissions

Where Colleges / Institutes submit their proposals for approval of admissions dates mentioned in 3 above, penalty will be charged as under:-

¶39

(a) Upto 28^th February, every year Rs.10,000/- per course.

¶40

(b) Upto 31^st March, every year Rs.50,000/- per course.

¶41

The decision, therefore, was taken by the Samiti in the said meeting that penalty will be charged if the proposal was submitted before 28^th February every year, penalty of Rs.10,000/- per course will be charged and if the proposal was submitted upto 31^st March, then penalty of Rs.50,000/- per course will be charged. A perusal of the said decision taken by the PNS clearly discloses that the outer limit of charging penalty was maintained in the said decision. By the impugned order, however, PNS directed the petitioners to pay penalty of 50% of the fees collected for the academic year 2010-2011 and 2011-12 and further penalty of Rs.10,000/- was charged for academic year 2009-10. This is clearly contrary to the decision taken by PNS. In our view, therefore, clearly the impugned order passed by PNS is wholly without

¶42

4/5

¶43

wp760-13

¶44

jurisdiction and hence is liable set aside. Reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 on the decisions of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court is irrelevant and the decisions given by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court clearly are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this case.

¶45

The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b) and disposed of.

¶46

5/5

Rachana Sansad'S Academy of Architecture and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachana Sansad'S Academy of Architecture and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

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

Shree Ram Glass through Its Proprietor Shri. Annasaheb Ashok Kajale Vs Shri. Ramchandra Tukaram Maske and Anr.

Shree Ram Glass through Its Proprietor Shri. Annasaheb Ashok Kajale Vs Shri. Ramchandra Tukaram Maske and Anr.

Happy Home School for the Blind and Ors. Vs the Commissioner of Disabilities, Director of Social Welfare and Ors.

Arshiya International Ltd. Vs Sicom Limited

Anil Purushottam Kangutkar and 97 Others Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Mahesh Kothari Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bombay Stock Exchange Limited.