Disposed

The Oci / Pio Students Parents Association, through Mr. Sanjay Anil Patwardhan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2016PIL/11/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL filed under Article 226 regarding admission rules for OCI/PIO students, the High Court held it could not direct the State to frame or change existing rules. The Court noted OCI does not mean dual citizenship and declined to entertain the petition, reserving rights for the aggrieved to file specific writs.

What did the court decide?

PIL declined; petitioner directed to challenge specific notifications via writ petition or representation to appropriate authority.

The Oci / Pio Students Parents Association, through… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PIL. 11-14

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 11 OF 2014

¶5

The OCI / PIO Students' Parents Association

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

¶10

None for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. N. C. Walimbe, AGP for the Respondent - State.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

¶14

PC.

¶15

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. By this petition, which is filed as PIL, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

¶16

(a) The Respondents may kindly be directed to make changes to their present Rules related to eligibility of resident OCI/PIO students for admissions against the state quota seats and to adopt similar Rules/policies as in existence in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala

¶17

1 / 3

¶18

PIL. 11-14

¶19

regarding the OCI/PIO students.

¶20

(b) This Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to take the decision swiftly without consuming any further time and declare the same publicly.

¶21

(c) Considering the past experience of one of such parents of OCI/PIO the Respondents may kindly be directed to file an affidavit before the Hon'ble Court after implementation of Court's order regarding changes in Rules related to eligibility of resident OCI/PIO students.

¶22

(d) Such other further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶23

The Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ order and directions, directing respondents to change the present rules relating to the eligibility of resident OCI/PIO students for admission against the state quota seats. It is quite well settled that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot give a direction to the State to either frame Rules or change the Rules, which are already framed.

¶24

The Respondent – State has filed affidavit in reply. It is

¶25

2 / 3

¶26

PIL. 11-14

¶27

clarified in the affidavit that the notifications, which are issued, are regarding registration of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI). It is further clarified that OCI is not to be construed as “dual citizenship”. It is also mentioned in the said affidavit that a distinction has been made between Non Resident Indian (NRI) and the Overseas Indian. In view of the affidavit in reply filed by the State, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL. Reserving the right of the aggrieved person to challenge the said notifications, and to seek appropriate directions by filing the writ petition or make a representation before the appropriate authority, PIL is disposed of.

¶28

Sd/Sd/[Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶29

Vinayak Halemath

¶30

3 / 3

The Oci / Pio Students Parents Association, through Mr. Sanjay Anil Patwardhan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oci / Pio Students Parents Association, through Mr. Sanjay Anil Patwardhan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education 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

Dinar Yashwant Sohoni Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare Vs Mr. Anil D. Datar and Ors.

Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Damodar Thakare and Ors. Vs the Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Shri Kaustubha Dattatraya Gokhale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Nagrik Chetna Manch through Its Secretary Ms. Qaneez-E-Fatemah Sukhrani Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Save Mangroves and Navi Mumbai Existence (Samne), through President Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Vishwas Laxman Aher and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Ors.

Dinar Yashwant Sohoni Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Maheshbhai Hiralal Champneria Vs M/S Kotak Securities Limited

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare Vs Mr. Anil D. Datar and Ors.

Dattatray Narhar Rajopadhye Vs M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.

Mr. Adhiraj Dhairyashil Mane Vs Union of India, the Chief Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development and Ors.

Ankur Prabhakar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.