Disposed

Vimal Himanshu Talwalkar and Ors. v. the Registrar, University of Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Mar 2015WP/8276/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a batch of writ petitions, the High Court directed a change in the order dated 1 April 2015 to correct the appearance of the College as opposed to the Council of Architecture. The court held it was unnecessary to decide on the validity or government approval requirement of the 2008 Regulations and clarified this order does not preclude future litigation on the matter.

What did the court decide?

Directed substitution of 'Advocate for Respondent No.2 – College' for 'Advocate for Council of Architecture' in the order dated 1 April 2015.

Vimal Himanshu Talwalkar and Ors. Vs the Registrar… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP8215/10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.8215 OF 2010

¶4

Ishan S. Darekar	… Petitioner
v/s
University of Pune and others	… Respondents

¶5

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8218 OF 2010
Pravin Abhimanyu Patil … Petitioner v/s University of Pune and others … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9408 OF 2014
Aditya R. Patil … Petitioner v/s
v/s University of Pune and others … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8265 OF 2011
Ishan S. Darekar … Petitioner v/s v/s University of Pune and others … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8274 OF 2011
Poja Nishikant Shirolkar and others … Petitioners v/s VRD 1 of 4

¶6

WP8215/10

¶7

v/s University of Pune and others … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8241 OF 2011
Tanvi Prakash Athalye and another … Petitioners v/s v/s University of Pune and others … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8267 OF 2011
Pravin Abhimanyu Patil … Petitioners v/s University of Pune and others … Respondents	v/s
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8276 OF 2011
Viraj Himanshu Talwalkar and others … Petitioners v/s v/s University of Pune and others … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2311 OF 2011
Ajay Ramesh Choudhary … Petitioner v/s v/s
University of Pune and others … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8266 OF 2011
Vinay Manikrao Ingle and others … Petitinoers VRD	2 of 4

¶8

WP8215/10

¶9

v/s

¶10

University of Pune and others … Respondents

¶11

Mr Sugandh B. Deshmukh for Respondent No.2. Mr A.V. Bukhari, Sr. Advocate with Mr Rahul Nerlekar for Respondent No.3.

¶12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

¶13

DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER 2015

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

The learned senior counsel for Respondent No.3 – Council of Architecture has taken out this praecipe dated 4^th September 2015 for speaking to the of our order dated 1^st April 2015.

¶16

The learned senior counsel for the Council of Architecture submits that it was only the contention of the Council of Architecture that the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations 2008 were required to be approved by the Government of India or that the matter was required to be decided on the basis of the Regulations of 1983. It is submitted that it is the contention of the Council of Architecture that 2008 Regulations are not Regulations but they are minimum standards of architectural education prescribed by the Council of Architecture under section 21 of the Council of Architecture Act 1972.

¶17

The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 – College does not agreed with the above submission.

3 of 4

VRD

WP8215/10

It is not necessary to decide the above controversy because for the purposes of deciding the controversy which was the subject matter of Writ Petitions, there is no material change in the Regulations to the effect that first the academic years / six semesters of approximately 16 working weeks each of the course shall be a basic standard course and shall be the first stage, provided that candidates admitted to the course shall complete the first state within five years of admission to the course.

¶22

We further direct that in paragraph 1 of the order dated 1^st April 2015 the appearance shall be shown as under :-

¶23

“In place of the words – 'Advocate for Council of Architecture', the words – 'Advocate for Respondent No.2 – College' shall be substituted.”

¶24

It is clarified that the order dated 1^st April 2015 does not preclude the Council of Architecture from contending in other proceedings that the Minimum Standards of of Architectural Education 2008 are valid and operative.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

¶27

4 of 4

¶28

VRD

Vimal Himanshu Talwalkar and Ors. v. the Registrar, University of Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Himanshu Talwalkar and Ors. v. the Registrar, University of Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sundeep Polymers(P) Ltd. Vs M/S Bhansali Eng.Polymers Ltd.

Actgen Pharma Pvt.Ltd. Vs Jianagxi Co.Ltd.

Mr. Sushil Sitaram Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Aditya Ravindranath Patil Vs the Registrar, University of Pune and Ors.

Pravin Abhimanyu Patil Vs the Registrar, University of Pune and Ors.

Ajay Ramesh Choudhary Vs the Registrar, University of Pune and Ors.