Disposed¶23

Sharmila W/O Sandesh Ghuge v. University of Mumbai through Registrar

Bombay HC12 Feb 2025PIL/14/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL; University of Mumbai; law colleges; 75% attendance requirement; mandatory attendance compliance; entertainment of PIL refused for want of particulars; Jitendra Chauhan College of Law; Bar Council of India (respondent no.2); Right to Information Act, 2005; liberty to file fresh PIL/writ petition; Bombay High Court; Alok Aradhe CJ; M. S. Karnik J.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted on merits; PIL not entertained and disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a writ petition/PIL afresh after obtaining better particulars. ¶23

Sharmila W/O Sandesh Ghuge vs University of Mumbai through Registrar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

3-PIL-14-2024.doc

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 14 OF 2024

¶5

Sharmila w/o Sandesh Ghuge .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

University of Mumbai & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sumit Khanna with Mr. Shyam Dewani and Dashang Doshi i/by Dewani Associates for petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar a/w Raufa Shaikh and Rahul Patil for respondent no.1-UoI.

¶11

Mr. Shekhar Jagtap for respondent no.2-BCI.

¶12

Mr. Rui Rodrigues for respondent no.3

¶13

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE: 24^th APRIL, 2025

¶14

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2025.04.24 17:38:30 +0530

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. The petitioner claims herself to be a full-time law faculty teaching at Jitendra Chauhan College of Law, affiliated to the University of Mumnai.

¶17

2. In this writ petition, which has been filed as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks a direction to the University of Mumbai to enforce and ensure compliance with the mandatory 75% attendance requirement for law colleges in accordance with the applicable laws, rules and regulations.

¶18

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. From the perusal of the PIL we find that the petitioner has neither given any particulars of colleges nor students,

¶19

¶20

3-PIL-14-2024.doc

¶21

who are being allowed to appear in the examination without following the mandatory 75% attendance requirement by law colleges. The petitioner, who is employee of Jitendra Chauhan College of Law has not even disclosed the names of students in her own college who are appearing in the examination without compliance with the aforesaid mandatory requirement.

¶22

4. The application filed by the petitioner seeking information in this regard is pending before the authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the absence of any material particulars and in the absence of name of colleges or the students who are appearing in the examination without compliance with the aforesaid mandatory requirement, we are not inclined to entertain the PIL. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a writ petition/PIL afresh after obtaining better particulars.

¶23

5. With the aforesaid liberty, PIL is disposed of.

¶24

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Sharmila W/O Sandesh Ghuge v. University of Mumbai through Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmila W/O Sandesh Ghuge v. University of Mumbai through Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Janahakka Sanrakshan Andolan through S.B. Gangurde and R.H. Sonawane and S.R. Gajghat vs State of Maharashtra

Anuj Krishnakumar Mittal vs State of Maharashtra

Akaram Santram Patil vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Dept. and Ors.

Rahul Sambhaji Tupe vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Adv. Chetan Hemant Bhoir vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Sachin Ranganath Bhagat vs Pune Municipal Corporation Thr Deputy Engineer and Ors.

Karmyogi Swargiya Dr Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar Taluka Eksangh Kruti Samiti Nilanga through vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Anuj Krishnakumar Mittal vs State of Maharashtra

Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganesh Enterprises through Its Authorized Person Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary

Surya Construction vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Power of One Logistics Park Private Limited vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

Everest Enterprises Thr. Its Sole Proprietor Dhawal Khanna vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Anr.