Disposed

Shri Durga Mata Bahu. Krida Va Saikshanik Sansthas U D Pashudhan Vyavsthapan Va Dugdhutpadan Padvik v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC14 Aug 2019WP/3732/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought to open a Livestock Management and Dairy Production Diploma course, which was rejected due to alleged non-compliance with deficiencies. The High Court directed the respondent authority to reconsider the proposal on its own merits expeditiously within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent authority to reconsider the proposal for granting the Livestock Management and Dairy Production Diploma course within three months.

Shri Durga Mata Bahu. Krida Va Saikshanik… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 wp 3732.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3732 OF 2019

¶4

SHRI DURGA MATA BAHUUDDESHIYA KRIDA VA SAIKSHANIK
SANSTHA'S UTTAMRAO DESHMUKH PASHUDHAN VYAVSTHAPAN

¶5

VA DUGDHUTPADAN PADVIKA, KHADAKWADI,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior

¶9

Advocate i/b. Mr. Hon Ashwin V.

¶10

AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S. G. Karlekar
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. P. G. Rodge
...

¶11

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶12

DATE: 14th AUGUST, 2019

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1.Pursuant to the application invited by

¶15

respondent no. 2, the petitioner had applied for
opening of the Livestock Management and Dairy
Production Diploma course at Manvat. During the

¶16

pendency of the writ petition, the said proposal
is rejected.

¶17

2.Mr. Hon, learned Senior Advocate for the

¶18

2 wp 3732.19

¶19

petitioner submits that the petitioner had
complied all the deficiencies and had submitted
the compliance report and without considering the
compliance report, respondent no. 2 had rejected
the application of the petitioner. The learned
Senior Advocate submits that, last year,
respondent no. 2 granted the petitioner /
institution permission to run similar college at
Yeotmal. The change report of the petitioner is
accepted and in the bylaws of the petitioner /
society the said course is incorporated in
June 2018.

¶20

3.The learned Senior Advocate for the

¶21

petitioner further submits that 10 Acres of the
land is made available and 2.5 Acres is irrigated.
The 7/12 extract is also submitted with the copy
of Gift Deed. The petitioner has submitted the
compliance report well within the time but the
respondents are alleging that the petitioner has
not responded to the deficiencies.

¶22

3 wp 3732.19

¶23

4.Mr. Rodge, learned counsel for respondent

¶24

no. 2 submits that even before filing of the
petition the petitioner was called upon to comply
the deficiencies. The deficiencies were informed,
however, the petitioner within the stipulated
period did not comply with the deficiencies and
only Gift Deed was produced without showing that
the land was as required is irrigated. Even bylaws
was not amended though change report was submitted
for amending bylaws of the Trust. There were other
deficiencies also. The same are not removed.

¶25

5.Whether the petitioner complies with all the
requirements has to be considered by the
respondents / authorities. We would not sit in
appeal over the decision taken by the respondents.

¶26

6.The bone of contention is the compliance of
the deficiencies. According to the petitioner the
deficiencies are complied with, whereas according
to the respondent the petitioner did not respond
to the deficiencies. The petitioner has placed all

¶27

4 wp 3732.19

¶28

the documents, 7/12 extract and also has contended
that the change report is accepted. Bylaws of the
Trust is also amended in June 2018, so also has
the necessary furniture and the infrastructure
available.

¶29

7.Considering the above, we direct the
respondent / authority to reconsider the proposal
submitted by the petitioner for grant of
Livestock Management and Dairy Production Diploma
course at Manvat. The same shall be reconsidered
on its own merits, expeditiously and preferably
within a period of three (03) months. In that
event, the impugned order would not be an
impediment. The petitioner may represent itself
before the authority on 26.08.2019, and
thereafter, on the date that will be convenient to
the respondent.

¶30

8.Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No
costs.

¶31

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe

Shri Durga Mata Bahu. Krida Va Saikshanik Sansthas U D Pashudhan Vyavsthapan Va Dugdhutpadan Padvik v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Durga Mata Bahu. Krida Va Saikshanik Sansthas U D Pashudhan Vyavsthapan Va Dugdhutpadan Padvik v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Gulabrao Umrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sandip Shankarrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shafik Kankarbhai Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kalyan Nivruti Jagtap and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Waman Jadhav and Another Vs the Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Another

Sultana Jainoddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others