Allowed

Shri Wagheshwar Gramvikas Pratishtan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2015WP/7209/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in this Writ Petition concerning the admission of new courses and affiliation of a registered Trust's college, relied on a concurrent Division Bench judgment. The Court directed the State to forthwith consider the application for starting new courses for the academic year 2015-16, ignoring specific Government Resolutions to the contrary, and directed the University to gra

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.1 State to forthwith consider the application for starting new courses without regard to Government Resolutions. Directed Respondent No.2 University to grant necessary affiliati

Shri Wagheshwar Gramvikas Pratishtan and Anr. Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

1/4

1 wp 7209.15 as .doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7209 OF 2015

¶6

Shri Wagheshwar Gramvikas Pratishtan & Anr. ….. Petitioner(s) V/s The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary & Anr. ….. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sandeep R. Waghmare for Petitioners.

¶8

Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.1 State.

¶9

Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &

¶11

A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 8 SEPTEMBER 2015

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶15

2 The Petitioner No.1 is a registered Trust and Petitioner No.2 is a

¶16

existing Institute/Degree College imparting education accordingly with necessary permission of the affiliation from the respective authorities since 2009-2010. As per the natural growth for the year 2015-2016 new

¶17

Courses in Commerce MCA and Science MCA, Science MCS and

¶18

Additional Division in B.A. are required to be started. The Petitioners

1/4

2/4

1 wp 7209.15 as .doc

applied accordingly. Considering the need of the students, the Petitioners have applied for approval for starting above new Courses. The Respondent University on 22 February 2014 inspected and recommended three courses out of four courses applied by the Petitioners. On 30 May 2014 the Respondent University therefore forwarded the Petitioners proposal to the State Government for grant of permission to start above new courses. However, in view of the Government Resolution dated 29 April 2015 the State has not taken decision on individual Application of the Petitioners. Therefore, present Petition filed on 15 July 2015.

¶24

3 The Petitioners, in view of the recommendation given by the Respondent University, have already admitted the students who have already deposited the requisite fees for the new additional courses and additional division to the Respondent University.

¶25

4 The submission is made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the present Petition also can be disposed of in view of the facts mentioned above and also for the reasons so recorded by allowing other Petitions referring to and/or revolving around the Government Resolutions dated 29 April 2015 and 20 July 2015. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties conceded to the position that the present Writ Petition can also be disposed of in view of a Division Bench judgment in

2/4

3/4

1 wp 7209.15 as .doc

Writ Petition No.6002 of 2015 (Habib Educational & Welfare Society’s M.S. College of Law vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) delivered by this Bench today i.e. dated 8 September 2015 as basic issues are common and so also the Respondents and Petitioners are also restricting to their claim and case as granted in the said Writ Petition. Therefore, we are inclined to dispose of the present Petition for the same reasons. Therefore, following order:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) It is hereby directed to Respondent No.1 State to forthwith consider the Application filed by the Petitioners, in accordance with law for starting a new additional courses in their existing degree college for academic year 2015-16, without taking into consideration of Government Resolutions dated 29 April 2015 and 20 July 2015 issued by Respondent No.1 - State.

¶33

ii) It is hereby further directed to Respondent No.2 University to consider granting necessary affiliation to the Petitioners, in accordance with law.

¶34

iii) Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

katkam

3/4

4/4

1 wp 7209.15 as .doc

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/Order.

¶43

4/4

Shri Wagheshwar Gramvikas Pratishtan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Wagheshwar Gramvikas Pratishtan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Anr.

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

Lalita Bhagwan Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Abhijit S/O. Kondiba Kharje Vs Director General of Police, Mr. Sanjeev Dayal and Ors.

Mrs. Usha Krishnat Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Shailaja Narayan Khairnar Vs Nashik District Maratha Vidyaprasarak Samaj Throgh Its General Secretary and Ors.

Ekta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Georai Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principle Secretary, Higher and Technical Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Sairaj Shikshan Pratishtan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept. and Anr.