Allowed

Phoenix Foundation Sanstha through Its Treasurer Amar Pasha Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Apr 2016WP/1772/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition, a college formation trust sought directions for the State Government to treat its rejected academic year 2015-2016 proposal as valid for 2016-2017, avoiding fresh deposits. Relying on precedent regarding similar cut-off dates, the bench directed the State to consider the proposed 2015-2016 application for the 2016-2017 academic session.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's proposal for academic year 2015-2016 as the proposal for academic year 2016-2017 without fresh deposits.

Phoenix Foundation Sanstha through Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1772.16WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1772 OF 2016

¶6

PHOENIX FOUNDATION SANSTHA THROUGH ITS
TREASURER AMARPASHA PATEL

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶9

...

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Patil
Prakashsing B.

¶11

AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.S. Badakh
Advocate for Respondent nos. 3 and 4 : Mr.
U.S. Malte

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Dated: April 20, 2016

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

This Petition is filed seeking
directions to the Respondents to consider the
proposal submitted by the petitioner for
academic year 2015-2016 by treating it to be
a proposal submitted for the academic year
2016-2017 without asking the petitioner to
submit the fresh proposal with fresh
deposits.

¶16

2.The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that, the petitioner
submitted proposal for opening new College

¶17

1772.16WP

¶18

¶19

for the academic year 2015-2016 at Kasar
Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. The said
proposal was verified by Respondent No. 4 and
positive recommendation was made to the State
Government. However, the State Government
rejected the same on the ground that, the
Government has taken decision not to approve
the proposals for the academic year 2015-
2016. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that, in Writ Petition
No.8655/2011 (Yuva Sports Club through
Secretary V/s The State of Maharashtra and
anr) with connected Writ Petitions, decided
on 7th December, 2011 and also in Writ
Petition No. 12395/2015 (Rajureshwar Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Takli Kolate, Tq. Phulambri
V/s The State of Maharashtra and others)
along with connected Writ Petitions, decided
on 28th December, 2015, the Division Bench of
this Court has directed the Respondent –
State Government to consider the proposals of
the petitioners therein, like the present
petitioner herein, for the academic year
2016-2017, without insisting for fresh
proposal with fresh deposits. Therefore, he
submits that, Respondent No.1 may be directed
to consider the proposal of the petitioner
for the academic year 2016-2017, keeping in

¶20

1772.16WP

¶21

¶22

view the recommendation given by the
University.

¶23

3.We have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing for the respective respondents.

¶24

4.The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner is right in contending that,
in similar set of facts, wherein the
University has recommended the proposals for
opening new colleges for the academic year
2014-2015 and academic year 2015-2016, this
Court directed Respondent No.1 to consider
the said proposals for the academic year
2016-2017. In that view of the matter, we
direct Respondent No.1 to consider the
proposal submitted by the petitioner for the
academic year 2015-2016 to be the proposal
submitted for the academic year 2016-2017,
without asking the petitioner to submit the
fresh proposal or fresh deposits, along with
the other proposals which may be received to
the respondents in pursuance of the
advertisement published in daily `Lokmat' on
14th December, 2015.

¶25

1772.16WP

¶26

¶27

5.The Petition is allowed in the above
terms and same stands disposed of.

¶28

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.)(S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶29

SGA

Phoenix Foundation Sanstha through Its Treasurer Amar Pasha Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phoenix Foundation Sanstha through Its Treasurer Amar Pasha Patel 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

Vaishali Dharamraj Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Bappasaheb Kharat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhawati Devidas Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abid Hussain Zainoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ansari Sadequa Bano Shafique Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashfaq Ahmed Rayees Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others