Nagaon Education Societys Institute of Pharmacy v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Oct 2015WP/4650/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner college was aggrieved by a state order reducing its admitted intake capacity from 120 to 60 students despite AICTE approval. The Division Bench, relying on previous interim orders and pending matters, allowed the writ petition and ruled on an interim basis to maintain the status quo previously permitted by interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; rule made absolute with no order as to costs.

Nagaon Education Societys Institute of Pharmacy Vs… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp4650.14.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4650 OF 2014

¶5

Nagaon Education Society's Institute of Pharmacy, Nagaon Tq. & Dist. Dhule Through its Principal Sachin s/o Vijay Chordiya, age 29 years, occ. service, r/o Nagaon Tq. & District Dhule. .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Higher Technical Education and Employment Department, Government of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶8

The Director of Technical Education Government of Maharashtra, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

¶9

The Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Government Polytechnic Building Kherwadi, Bandar (E) Mumbai Through its Director.

¶10

All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi 110001.

¶11

The Pharmacy Council of India Through its Registrar Cum Secretary, Combined Council Building, Kotala Road, Ali Yavarjang Marg, New Delhi 110002. .. RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr. V.B. Jadhav, advocate holding for Mr. A.V. Hon, advocate for petitioner. Mr. U.S. Mote, AGP for the State.

¶13

Mr. S.V. Adwant, advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶14

Mr. Alok Sharma, advocate for respondent no. 5.

=====

wp4650.14.doc

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶19

P. R. BORA, JJ. DATE : 8^th OCTOBER, 2015.

¶20

JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)

¶21

Heard.

¶22

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶23

parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶24

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2014 issued by the State Government restricting admission capacity of the petitioner-college to 60 students as against 120 students permitted during the preceding year. It is not a matter of dispute that AICTE has approved intake capacity of the college to the extent of 120 students during the year 2013-2014. There is no order restricting admission capacity of the college issued by AICTE. It also cannot be controverted that it is the domain of AICTE to approve intake capacity and other academic matters and, any order, contrary to the approval accorded by AICTE, is not expected to be issued by the State on consideration of the instructions from the Pharmacy Council of India.

¶25

Reliance is placed on a judgment in the matter of Gandhi College of Pharmacy Vs. AICTE, reported in AIR 1995 PH 315 so also interim order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 7277/2014 on 09.05.2014 as well as order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5750/2013 and other companion matters on 18.07.2013. On consideration of said orders, referred to above, the Division Bench of this court, by order dated 18.06.2014,

¶26

wp4650.14.doc

¶27

¶28

permitted the institution to admit students through Centralised Admission Process to first year diploma in pharmacy and as such, accordingly, by virtue of interim order, the College has granted admission to the students within limit of permissible intake approved by AICTE, provisionally. It has been further submitted that even for the next academic year i.e. 2015-2016, the students have been admitted by petitioner-college to the said course. It has been stated that even for the academic year 2015-2016, the Apex Court has passed interim order permitting AICTE to grant extension of approval. The academic year 2014-2015 has come to an end and, the interim order issued by the Supreme Court, permitting AICTE to grant extension of approval, is also in force.

¶29

In view of the reasons recorded above, writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the interim order passed by this Court and the same is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute in above terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

( P.R. BORA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb

Nagaon Education Societys Institute of Pharmacy v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaon Education Societys Institute of Pharmacy 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

Sanjay Bhaurao Khadke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jagannath Nivrutti Bhusare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagwan Ramkishan Nirval and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Baban Tukaram Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandharinath Yankoji Ghuge and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaibhav Madhav Lahamge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others