Disposed

Sandip Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nashik v. All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and Another

Bombay HC13 Dec 2016WP/2058/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard multiple writ petitions challenging the condition of NBA accreditation in the approval process for the 2015-2016 academic year. The court noted the academic year had ended and the association had withdrawn petitions. Consequently, the court disposed of the remaining petitions as infructuous but directed the respondent to refund deposited amounts.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of as infructuous no costs; respondent directed to refund deposited amounts expeditiously.

Sandip Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nashik… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 wp 2058.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2058 OF 2015 WITH

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10971 OF 2015

¶5

Sandip Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nashik .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and others .. Respondents

¶8

Mrs. Vaishali N. Patil (Jadhav), Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S. S. Raut, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2.

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 2075 OF 2015

¶11

Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus

¶12

All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and others .. Respondents

¶13

Shri Vikram S. Kadam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S. S. Raut, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 2751 OF 2015

¶16

WITH

¶17

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3209 OF 2015

¶18

Aldel Education Trusts St. John Institute of Pharmacy and Research, Palghar .. Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and others .. Respondents

¶21

2 wp 2058.15

¶22

Shri S. R. Dheple, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S. S. Raut, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶23

WITH

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO. 2752 OF 2015 WITH

¶25

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3210 OF 2015

¶26

Aldel Education Trusts St. John Institute of Pharmacy and Research, Palghar .. Petitioner Versus

¶27

All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and others .. Respondents

¶28

Shri S. R. Dheple, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S. S. Raut, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶29

WITH

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO. 3579 OF 2015

¶31

Khalapur Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's B. L. Patil Polytechnic .. Petitioner Versus

¶32

All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi .. Respondent

¶33

Shri S. K. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶34

WITH

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO. 3580 OF 2015

¶36

Jumma Masjid Charitable Trust's J. M. C. T. Polytechnic, Nashik .. Petitioner Versus All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi .. Respondent

¶37

Shri Vivek Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶38

3 wp 2058.15

¶39

WITH

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO. 3581 OF 2015

¶41

Vidya Vikas Prathishthan and anr. .. Petitioners Versus All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi .. Respondent

¶42

Shri Nitin Dhumal, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶43

WITH

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO. 3582 OF 2015

¶45

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and anr. .. Petitioners Versus All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi .. Respondent

¶46

Shri Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Shri Yashodeep Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶47

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. L. WADANE, JJ. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2016.

¶48

PER COURT :

¶49

. All these matters were listed on 20^th November, 2016. The same were adjourned at the request of Mr. Dhepale and Mrs. Jadhav, the learned counsel, who were appearing on the said date. The other advocates for respective petitioners were absent.

¶50

On the last date Mr. Adwant, the learned counsel for the respondent/A.I.C.T.E. made a statement that, the respondent/A.I.C.T.E. is ready to refund the amount deposited by

¶51

4 wp 2058.15

¶52

the petitioners along with the applications. The association which has filed the petitions has already withdrawn their writ petitions on the ground that same have become infructuous.

¶53

The reliefs claimed in present writ petitions are also with regard seeking directions against the respondent/A.I.C.T.E. not to implement the condition of NBA accreditation in approval process for the academic year 2015-2016.

¶54

The said academic year has already come to an end. Mrs. Jadhav, the learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition No. 2058 of 2015 states that, she is instructed to withdraw the writ petition.

¶55

Considering the fact that, all the writ petitions have become infructuous as the academic year for which the petitioners were seeking relief has already come to an end long back, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

¶56

The respondent/A.I.C.T.E. shall refund the amount deposited by petitioners along with applications expeditiously.

¶57

[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶58

bsb/Dec. 16

Sandip Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nashik v. All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nashik v. All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasant Ramchandra Puranik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Sahebrao Patil Vs Kisan Vidya Prasarak Sanstha Shirpur through President v T Randhir and Ors.

Vithal Uttam Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sushilabai Sopan Rathod Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad Vs All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and Others

Usman Nizamoddin Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Others