Allowed

Ideal Foundation'S Ideal Institute of Architecture , through Its Principal . Registrar ) v. the Secretary, Technical and Higher Edcuation , State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2017WP/8191/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner college sought approval to display increased student intake on the University website after State Government approval was granted during petition pendency.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to display increased capacity of 80 students on website for admissions.

What the court decided

Ideal Foundation'S Ideal Institute of Architecture… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

rsk

¶2

1922-WP-8191-17.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8191 OF 2017

¶5

Ideal Foundation's Ideal Institute of Architecture, through its Principal, Registrar Somendra Sharma Vs.

¶6

The Secretary, Technical & Higher Education, State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Saliyar Kalaimagal Mogili for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.A. Rodrigues for the Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI AND

¶12

RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 28^th JULY 2017

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

¶16

The Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to grant approval to the Petitioner's college for additional intake capacity of 40 students. The Petitioners are running a College of Architecture. The Council of Architecture was initially granted approval for intake capacity of 40 students till the academic year 20162017. Insofar as academic year 2017-2018 is concerned, indisputably the Council by its communication dated 16/5/2014 has granted approval for increasing the intake capacity from 40 to 80 students. The Respondent NO.3/University vide letter dated 1/4/2017 has recommended the case of the Petitioner for grant of approval to increase the intake capacity from 40 to 80.

¶17

rsk 2 922-WP-8191-17.doc

¶18

Since inspite of grant of approval by the Council and the recommendation by the University, the State Government had not granted its approval, the Petitioner was required to approach this Court. However, during pendency of the petition vide Government Resolution dated 21/7/2017, the State Government has also granted approval for increasing the capacity intake from 40 to 80 students. Now the only question that remain is display of intake capacity of 80 students on the website of the Respondent No.2 for further rounds of admission.

¶19

Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, learned AGP vehemently opposes the petition. She submits the Government Resolution dated 21/7/2017 is conditional to the approval/affiliation by the Respondent No.3/University. She submits that unless the University grants affiliation, increase intake capacity cannot be displayed on the website. We find the objection to be hyper technical.

¶20

When the University has itself recommended to the State Government for grant of approval to increase the intake capacity from 40 to 80 students, grant of affiliation by it is an empty formality.

¶21

Mr. R. A. Rodrigues appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3 clearly states that once the letter is received by the University from the Director of Technical Education/Respondent No.2, the University would take necessary steps for grant of affiliation.

¶22

In that view of the matter, we find that when increase in intake capacity by the Petitioner is approved by the Council of Architecture, recommended by university and again approved by the State Government, the Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶23

rsk 3 922-WP-8191-17.doc

¶24

The Respondent No.2 is directed to display on the website the increased capacity of 80 students for admission to Institute of Architecture run by the Petitioner.

¶25

Rule made absolute with no order as to cost.

¶26

Learned AGP is requested to communicate the order to the Respondent No.2 by telephone/fax/e-mail.

¶27

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Ideal Foundation'S Ideal Institute of Architecture , through Its Principal . Registrar ) v. the Secretary, Technical and Higher Edcuation , State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ideal Foundation'S Ideal Institute of Architecture , through Its Principal . Registrar ) v. the Secretary, Technical and Higher Edcuation , 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Azmi Rabia Abdul Mannan Shikshan Sevak in Anjuman Riyazul Islam High School Vs Ghazi Mohammed Irfan and 8 Ors.

Members of Diamond Isle III Chs Ltd. Vs Signatories of Managing Committee and Exe. and 1 Ors.

Dr. Sanjay Balkrishna Nandedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Additional Principal Secretary and Ors.

Hetal Samir Mehta Vs Samir Rajinkant Mehta

Shri. Dattatray Raghunath Menkudale Vs Sangli Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sangli and Ors.

Diliprao Shankarrao Thete and Ors. Vs the District Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies and Ors.