Disposed

Balasaheb Shivaji Ralebhat v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2020PIL/1/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the essentiality certificate and permission granted to a nursing college. The Court held that existing regular inspections rendered an independent committee impermanent and disposed of the matter without further orders.

What did the court decide?

No orders entertained; the PIL and the connected civil application stood disposed of with remission of petitioner's security deposit.

Balasaheb Shivaji Ralebhat Vs the State of Mah and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

924-PIL-01-12.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.1 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11924 OF 2013

¶4

IN PIL/1/2012

¶5

BALASAHEB SHIVAJI RALEBHAT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Ajinkya Kalhe h/f

¶7

Shri S. B. Talekar

¶8

AGP for Respondent No.1: Shri G. O. Wattamwar Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Shri V. R. Dhorde i/b

¶9

Shri R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri C. A. Jadhav

¶10

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ. DATE : 21^st JANUARY, 2020

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

The petitioner has challenged essentiality certificate issued by respondent No.1 – State Government dated 15-07-2011 in favour of respondent No.3 - Shri Sai Nursing College, Jamkhed and permission given by respondent No.2 – Maharashtra Nursing Council to respondent No.3 for conducting general nursing and midwifery course and for appointment of independent committee for inspection of respondent No.3 Nursing College at Jamkhed and take necessary action thereon.

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

924-PIL-01-12.odt

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for parties, it emerges that, having regard to the need to have General Nursing and Midwifery Schools as well as ratio of nurses available to the population of Maharashtra, it is desirable to grant permission to start a General Nursing and Midwifery School at Jamkhed with capacity of 60 students and, thus, essentiality certificate dated 1507-2011 was issued. As far as this aspect is concerned, the need to have a General Nursing and Midwifery School at Jamkhed is not seriously disputed.

¶16

It appears that respondent No.2 had carried out inspections from year to year and permissions have been accorded, albeit, petitioner is bit apprehensive but is not in a position to overcome veracity of those.

¶17

There appear to be inspections by the State as well as by respondent No.2 and while there is no dispute on that, as of now, inspections are being regularly carried out and requisite permissions are granted and that deficiencies as were perceived by the petitioner have been taken care of. As such, appointment of independent committee, may not be imperative.

¶18

In view of the same, no orders appear to be required in the present situation. The public interest litigation is, therefore, disposed of.

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

924-PIL-01-12.odt

¶21

The amount deposited by petitioner may be remitted to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad

¶22

In view of disposal of public interest litigation, Civil Application No.11924 of 2013 seeking amendment to present public interest litigation also stands disposed of.

¶23

(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶24

SVH

¶25

3 of 3

Balasaheb Shivaji Ralebhat v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Shivaji Ralebhat v. the State of Mah 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

Tanaji Bramhadeo Kalel Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Ors.

Sagar Kundalik Dalvi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Department of Urban Development Mumbai and Others

Mr. Tekchand Gopaldas Khanchandani Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mah. Rajya Karmachari Mahasangh (Prop.) Thru Shri. Mukund H. Jadwar vs Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Urmila W/O Wasudeo Kowe Vs the Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, through Secretary and Others

S. G. Barnes Vs the Commissioner of Bmc 5 Ors.

Red Crescent Society of Mumbai Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shri Dadasaheb Sukhdev Kate and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramchandra Haribhau Dhage and Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Babasaheb Narahari Adale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramnath Pandurang More and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Basappa Chanappa Hagalgude Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Anil Bhagwanrao Jogdand and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gazi S a Ansari Vs the Union of India and Others