Allowed

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

Bombay HC22 Sept 2021WP/1789/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order rejecting the proposal to open a Women's Junior College because the Government failed to scrutinize the proposal. The Court directed the State to consider the proposal with positive recommendations and conduct a scrutiny within 4 months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the communication dated 07.02.2019; Directed the State to consider the proposal with positive recommendations and conduct scrutiny within 4 months.

Tuljamata Education Society through Its President Vs… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1789 OF 2020

¶4

TULJAMATA EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH IT’S PRESIDENT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

 DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2021

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

1. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clause ‘C’ and ‘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 Women's Junior College, at
Tuljapur.”

¶14

khs/Sept. 2021/1789

¶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 07/02/2019 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

¶19

khs/Sept. 2021/1789

¶20

¶21

file/proposal of the petitioner.

¶22

5.We, therefore, called upon the learned 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. 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

¶25

khs/Sept. 2021/1789

¶26

with it's positive recommendations, and conduct a close scrutiny strictly
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. 2021/1789

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

Statutes considered

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.