Allowed

Tuljamata Education Society through Its President v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC22 Sept 2021WP/1756/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of an order denying a Letter of Intent for starting a Junior College, the Bombay High Court held that the Government failed to consider the petitioner's submitted documents. The Court quashed the order and directed the State to conduct a fresh scrutiny of the proposal filed through the University within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in prayer 'C'; order quashed; direction to State to scrutinize proposal via University within 4 months.

Tuljamata Education Society through Its… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1756 OF 2020
TULJAMATA EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH IT’S PRESIDENT

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶6

Mr.K.K.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.R.Yadav, AGP for respondent No.1.
Mr.V. U.Pawar h/f Mr.S.S.Tope, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶7

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, JJ)

¶8

DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2021

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

1.By this petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clause ‘C’ and

¶11

‘D’ as under :-

¶12

“C. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set
aside the communication dated 07.02.2019 issued by the Desk
Officer, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya
Mumbai [communicated to petitioner vide communication
dated 16.02.2018 via respondent No.2.].

¶13

D. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondent No.1 to accord its sanction/permission to the
proposal of petitioner for opening of Junior College, at Village
Kati, Tuljapur.”

¶14

khs/Sept. 2021/1756

¶15

¶16

2.We had extensively heard the learned Advocates for the
respective sides on 14/09/2021 and we had posted the matter today in
the light of the submissions canvassed before us.

¶17

3. After hearing the learned Advocates, we were convinced that the
impugned order dated 07/02/20219 and the accompanying annexures
containing the list of deficiencies noticed by the Government, as
grounds for declining to issue a letter of intent to the petitioner for
starting a new College at the place mentioned in the above reproduced
prayers, calls for interference.

¶18

4.On our scrutiny, it was apparent that the proposal of the
petitioner containing the fulfillment of requirements including the
presentation of a fixed deposit receipt for a particular amount, for a
particular duration, were not considered by the Government while
listing out the deficiencies. We were convinced that the Government
appeared to have referred to a completely different file and the details
in that file, which are totally distinct from the contents of the
file/proposal of the petitioner. We, therefore, called upon the learned

¶19

khs/Sept. 2021/1756

¶20

- 3 -

¶21

Advocate for the university to inform the Court as to whether the
requirement for starting the new Arts, Science and Commerce college at
the concerned place is still unfulfilled.

¶22

5.Mr.Tope, the learned Advocate representing the university
submits on instructions that the requirement of Arts, Science and
Commerce Junior College at the concerned place is not fulfilled and the
University would have no issue if the Government favourably considers
the proposal of the petitioner.

¶23

6.In view of the above, we are avoiding going into the details of the
proposal of the petitioner which we have already verified while
recording the submissions of the learned Advocate and having noticed
that the proposal filed by the petitioner has not been scrutinized by the
Government while passing the impugned order, that this petition is
allowed in terms of prayer clause 'C'.

¶24

7.We, therefore, direct respondent No.1 to consider the proposal
filed by the petitioner as is forwarded by respondent No.2/ University
with it's positive recommendations, and conduct a close scrutiny strictly

¶25

khs/Sept. 2021/1756

¶26

in accordance with the procedure applicable. If it finds that the
proposal is worthy of consideration and there are no legal impediments,
respondent No.1 would proceed to initiate steps as are prescribed in
Law. We expect this exercise to be completed within 4 months for the
academic year 2022-2023.

¶27

 ( S.G. MEHARE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶28

khs/Sept. 2021/1756

Tuljamata Education Society through Its President v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tuljamata Education Society through Its President 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

Priyanka Swayam Ajmera and Another Vs the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector Land Acquisition and Another

Ashwini Hanumant Paralkar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasant Sukhdev Hatagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Ex. Engineer, Girna Cannel Renovation Division- 2, Jalgaon and Anr. Vs Shabbir Hazi Usman Bagwan and Ors.

Tuljamata Education Society through Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The Ex. Engineer, Girna Cannel Renovation Division- 2, Jalgaon and Anr. Vs Chandrakant Sitaram Patil and Ors.