Disposed

Citizen Forum for Sanctity in Educational System, through Member, Mr. Sanjay Mukund Kelkar v. Member Secretary, Aicte and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2019PIL/33/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the submission that the Petitioner's purpose was achieved after the Respondents took appropriate actions regarding Occupancy Certificates for Engineering Colleges, the High Court disposed of the Public Interest Litigation. The Court expressly reserved its opinion on the validity of such certificates.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the authenticity of Occupancy Certificates granted.

Citizen Forum for Sanctity in Educational System… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

PIL 33.14.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 33 OF 2014

¶6

Citizen Forum for Sanctity in Educational System through its Member, Mr. Sanjay Kelkar. … Petitioner.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Member Secretary, AICTE & Ors. … Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Ashish Mehta a/w Kaustubh Gupte for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijeet Joshi for the Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for Respondents 3,4 and 7. Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondents 6 and 13.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶11

DATE : 24 JANUARY, 2019.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the main contention of the Petitioner is that some of the Engineering Colleges without having the Occupancy Certificate were running the Colleges. The list of eleven such Engineering Colleges is mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Petition.

¶14

PIL 33.14.doc

¶15

¶16

The learned Counsel appearing for AICTE submits that the necessary steps and actions have been taken and on intimation the respective Management of the Engineering Colleges have resorted to seeking appropriate Occupancy Certificate from the Local Authorities/Bodies. The learned Counsel submits that some of the Colleges have received such certificates and some of them have approached this Court by filing independent Petitions wherein their occupation has been protected by the Court.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent developments and as the purpose of bringing to the notice the above stated fact by the Petitioner is over, the Petition can be disposed of as per the instructions received from the Petitioner.

¶18

The order passed on 18 September 2018 by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Shantanu S. Kemkar and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) reads as under :-

¶19

“ Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to get instructions from the Petitioner as to whether the Petition can be withdrawn as the AICTE has already taken appropriate actions and it is still taking actions as and when required.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, list this matter in the next week under the caption for 'Withdrawal'.”

¶21

PIL 33.14.doc

¶22

¶23

In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel as above, the Petition is disposed of.

¶24

It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the authenticity and legality of any such Occupancy Certificates granted in favour of the Engineering Colleges. In case the Petitions filed by the Management of Engineering Colleges are pending on the subject issue, they will be considered on their own merits without being influenced by the outcome of this Petition.

¶25

N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Citizen Forum for Sanctity in Educational System, through Member, Mr. Sanjay Mukund Kelkar v. Member Secretary, Aicte and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Citizen Forum for Sanctity in Educational System, through Member, Mr. Sanjay Mukund Kelkar v. Member Secretary, Aicte and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babasaheb Balbhim Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Ahmad M. Abdi Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Mr. Sajjad Moinuddin Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Syed Zaker Syed Hussain Vs the Union of India and Others

Govind Babanrao Yewle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahesh Sitaram Dhannawat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt. Preeti S/O Arun Joseph and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Mr. Ramchandra Laxminarayan Kasat and Anr. Vs the Estate Officer, Central Railway Pune and Anr.

Mr. Sajjad Moinuddin Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Shubham Civil Projects Pvt. Ltd. Thru Managing Director, Shri. Vinay K Badera Vs the Principal Secretary,Public Works Development Dept. and Ors.

Ganesh Harishchandra Gole Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Ganesh Harishchandra Gole Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Mumbai Taxi/Auto Rickshaw Mens Sangharsh Association Thru Its Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secty. Vs the Principal Secty. (Parivahan Iv) Dept. of Transport and Ors.