Dismissed

Badsaha Anjuman Ishate Taleem Shikshan Sanstha Ryp (Marathi) D.Ed College through President v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2016WP/2118/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning the rejection of a proposal to open a new D.Ed. College, the Court held that the proposal must now comply with new Regulations 2014. The petitioner was directed to apply afresh.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to apply afresh in accordance with the Regulations as existing now.

Badsaha Anjuman Ishate Taleem Shikshan Sanstha Ryp… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 2118/11

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2118/2011

¶5

Badsaha Anjuman Ishate Taleem
Shikshan Sanstha, RYP (Marathi),
D.Ed. College, Aurangabad,
Through its President
Yusuf Khan Badsaha Pathan.

¶6

...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & two others.

¶9

...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.V. Virdhe, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 20.08.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]Shri P.S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶17

states that the petitioner had applied for opening a new

¶18

D.Ed. College, however, the said proposal is rejected

¶19

only on the ground that the petitioner does not possess

¶20

land. According to the learned counsel, the proposal of

¶21

the petitioner being prior in point of time has to be

¶22

considered as per the policy as existing then. The
documents were produced on record. The same were

¶23

WP 2118/11

¶24

required to be considered. Copy of the registered lease-
deed and the saledeed would substantiate the case of the
petitioner.

¶25

2]Shri S.S. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent
nos.2 & 3 submits that now the proposal will have to be
considered as per the Regulations 2014. The directions
are issued by the Apex Court to consider all the pending

¶26

proposals and also fresh proposals as per new

¶27

Regulations.

¶28

3]In the light of the above, the proposal of the

¶29

petitioner now would be required to comply with the
conditions of the new Regulations. In such an event, the
petitioner may apply afresh in accordance with the
Regulations as existing now. In case such a proposal is

¶30

received from the petitioner, the respondents may
consider the same expeditiously in accordance with law,
policy and norms.

¶31

4]Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶32

ndk/ c208166.doc

Badsaha Anjuman Ishate Taleem Shikshan Sanstha Ryp (Marathi) D.Ed College through President v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badsaha Anjuman Ishate Taleem Shikshan Sanstha Ryp (Marathi) D.Ed College through President v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Kalyan Dattatraya Chaudhari and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Employees Provident Fund Organization through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Others Vs Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. through the Chief Executive Officer and Another

Suryakant Girjaram Ubale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Rangrao Pawar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Satish Babulal Devare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suresh Prakash Kotumbe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.