The State of Maharashtra through Secretary Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai v. Chatrapati Shikshan and Arogya Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar and Another

Bombay HC11 Mar 2015RA/30/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review application, the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad rejected a request by the State of Maharashtra. The applicant argued the court had overlooked documents but found that, even upon perusal, the State failed to explain apparent discrimination regarding college permissions granted to another society. The court declined to entertain the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary Higher… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

rast3828.15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO.3828 OF 2015 IN

¶6

WRIT PETTIION NO.4413 OF 1999

¶7

The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary, Higher and
Technical Education Department,
Maharashtra State.

¶8

...APPLICANT
 (Ori. Respondent No.1)

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

1) Chatrapati Shikshan And Arogya
 Prasarak Mandal, Kharda,
 At Kharda, Tq-Jamkhed,
 Dist-Ahmednagar,
 through its Secretary
(Ori. Petitioner)
2) Pune University, Pune,
 Through its Registrar.
...RESPONDENTS

¶11

 ...
 Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Applicant.
 Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande Advocate for
 Respondent No.1.

¶12

...

¶13

rast3828.15

¶14

¶15

CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶16

 DATE : 11TH MARCH, 2015

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

1.Heard learned A.G.P. for Applicant and

¶19

learned counsel for Respondent No.1.

¶20

2.This Application seeks review of the

¶21

order we passed on 26th August 2014 in Writ
Petition No.4413 of 1999.

¶22

3.The learned A.G.P. stated that while

¶23

passing the order dated 26th August 2014, we did
not take into account reply dated 11th August 2014
and letter dated 8th August 2014.

¶24

4.Unfortunately, even after perusal of

¶25

above two documents, we find that the State of

¶26

Maharashtra did not say anything about the
allegations made against them about which the
Court had directed them to file reply. What was

¶27

rast3828.15

¶28

¶29

alleged then was discriminatory treatment given to
the original Petitioner as against other college
of the same area to which permission was granted
on 14th March 2001. The State of Maharashtra,
despite opportunity, did not mention as to why
permission was granted for opening new college on
14th March 2001 to another education society with
condition that effort will be made to bring that
College under grant-in-aid policy and why such
permission did not amount to discrimination. In
view of this, there is no reason to entertain the
Review Application. Review Application is
rejected.

¶30

[A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.]
asb/MAR15

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai v. Chatrapati Shikshan and Arogya Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai v. Chatrapati Shikshan and Arogya Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pallavi Arun Gokhale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhule Agricultural Produce Market Committee,Dhule Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation,Pune and Anr.

Babulal Rama Thakre Vs Work Load Committee and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai Vs Chatrapati Shikshan and Arogya Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar and Another

Kalabai Vithal Niklaje Died through Lrs Sanjay Vithal Nikalje and Others Vs Village Development Officer Ashti and Others

Kalabai Vithal Niklaje Died through Lrs Sanjay Vithal Nikalje and Others Vs Village Development Officer Ashti and Others